Talk:News

Here's the UD news in its entirety. It can be moved to a template or something for embedding in another page (like the mainpage) if needed. Also, if FAQ, etc. is ported over, the external links might be changed to link to entries here (unless we really want the original news in here).

December 6th

Several people have noticed a dramatic increase in the search rates of both FAKs and syringes today. I had a lot of luck with FAKs, almost every second search got me one. Dunno about syringes. Could anyone else confirm this? --Jenx 11:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Are those FAKs coming from hospitals or malls? Linkthewindow  Talk  11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hospitals. I found 10 FAKs in a hospital today for around 20 AP. 2 days ago I barely found 3 for the same AP in the same hospital. Now either I and a few people have some really really good luck today, I believe there is an increase. --Jenx 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RSS feed

For Urban Dead game news, found for you loverly igoogle (and others) user fanatics. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

October 14th

I just killed a harman and now the building description reads The floor is flecked with fresh blood. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:43, 14 October 2008 (BST)

IN addition, it adds an option for survivors to clean up the blood. Too bad I just moved my screenshots, so I can't post anything. I wonder what happens if you'd let the blood accumulate?--Kolechovski 22:42, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Does it say AP cost for cleaning? I want to see what a mall looks like after a siege :D. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:03, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Logged in to find the message as The floor is flecked with dried blood. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Actually, you don't even have to kill someone. They appeared when I hit someone and they dropped to 31HP. Looks like there's a chance to cause them on every attack. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:58, 15 October 2008 (BST)

From my observations it does cost 1 AP to clean blood. And there are bvarious stages of bloodiness. I noticed that there is " a few bloody handprints are smeared on the walls" and " pools of blood are gathering on the floor"--James beckerson 16:35, 16 October 2008 (BST)

I noticed that after a break-in, the message was The floor is slick with fresh blood. and I couldn't clean it up because the zombies were standing in it. Maybe it's possible to slip and hurt yourself.--Scott Timewell 03:51, 19 October 2008 (BST)

It costs 1 AP per level of bloodiness that you clean up. You get new flavor text after each cleaning - it isn't like repairing ruins. Also, the blood can either be fresh, or dried and crusted, if it's been left alone for a bit. Cleaning dried blood involves "scraping." I just wish I'd saved screenshots...I was so eager to try it out, I forgot to. :) --Jen 04:03, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Blood can be visible from the outside, specifically if The windows are splashed with fresh blood.--Scott Timewell 03:01, 20 October 2008 (BST)

So unless it gets splashed on windows, thus becoming a 1x1 Feeding Groan to outside zombies, this has no practical effect?--Drugsanimudongs 07:53, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Does the word flavour ring any bells? you might know it as it's more primitive cousin flavor. --xoxo 08:08, 20 October 2008 (BST)

I have no problem with flavor. I like this update a lot, actually. I just wanted to ask if there was a use for it that I was missing.--Drugsanimudongs 16:02, 22 October 2008 (BST)

See mid's below comment, i can't think of anything else...--xoxo 06:21, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Well, it makes survivors use some AP to clean it up (and they will, even if it has no gameplay effect). What do you expect when you don't have to pay any extra AP to get it there? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:22, 20 October 2008 (BST)

I love the update. --~~~~ [talk] 19:33, 14 October 2008 (BST)

So...has anyone made a wiki page of what the blood flavor text looks like? My collection of blood-level text has a lot of holes. :/ --Jen 06:04, 22 October 2008 (BST)

When accessing a Necronet scan, the building you are accessing from is now highlighted on the Necronet map. --Queen Mum 20:15, 14 October 2008 (BST)

And other necronets are vaguely indicated. Look. [[1]]--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:19, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Finally, someone is listening to reason. I eagerly await the implementation of the rest of my ideas. In the meantime, VICTORY PARTY --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 20:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Geee... its not like these suggestions werent discussed before your little collection... but victory party is a good thing for zmobiekind :D --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 20:43, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Maybe if it was one, or maybe even two, but this many? I deserve this victory party and you are not invited. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 21:07, 14 October 2008 (BST)

WOOT! Victory! Yesh! anyway... any idea what blood on the floor does? :/ My guess is you can slip on the blood and crack your skull open, and instadie. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:41, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I was sure that there was a suggestion a while back that concretely suggested "deaths should make a bloody mess on the floor." But I'm too lazy to actually find it. :P --Jen 05:04, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Party-crash! Corpse Feeding is a welcome addition, but I liked it better under Katthew/カシュー/Cashew's 2 or 3 HP/1 AP ratio. 4 HP for feeding upon live body, but also 4 HP for munching on a reviving/rotting corpse? Midnight Reviver 03:50, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Its pretty near useless as it is. If you are a wounded zombie, standing from a headshot is likely near as cheap (if not cheaper) than munching corpses back to full health. And munching corpses does no harm to survivors. Pretty much the only useful time would be if you are wounded, and inside a building you want to hold, and there's bodies in there, and there are no survivors to attack. Rare circumstances indeed, and not ones in which a higher AP cost would be justified / required for balance.
What this really is good for is chowing don on corpses in front of friends of survivors you killed during a strike so that they se the "zombie feasted on a corpse" type message, but that is just for the flavor effect- you are unlikely to need the HPs in that case, and if you did, you could probably bite survivors (albeit with a much lower hit rate- the 100% rate is nice).  Swiers 18:52, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Just noting that the power-on message looks like this: The lights came on inside Knapp Boulevard Police Dept. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

And the new attacking a zombie with flesh rot message looks like: You fire your shotgun at the zombie for 10 damage. Their rotten flesh absorbs 2 points of that damage --'BP^Tmz 19:54, 15 October 2008 (BST)

This sucks, but it's hardly game breaking. Just a pointless little update, and some long overdue flavor. Now for those SMGS... --House of Usher 17:49, 15 October 2008 (BST)

It only sucks for survivors who are upset that they're no longer nigh-invincible li'l munchkins. Wait until zombies get Headcrush! Then things will be even! --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 20:32, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Bahahaha, i love kevan :D --xoxo 07:05, 16 October 2008 (BST)

When do the survivors get a new update? :( This one is just (like the one before, and the one therefore) a zombie buff/ survivor nerf.--Thadeous Oakley 23:33, 18 October 2008 (BST)

.... Not until its actually fun to be a zed again, hopefully--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:07, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Why cant Kevan just implement all these awesome buffs all round? Cmon, you all know it would rock. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:26, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Does anyone know what message you get when you listen to a radio channel and it's transmitter is destroyed?--'BP^Tmz 20:49, 19 October 2008 (BST)

The radio has been destroyed filling the room with an eerie silence, it is somehow probably Grim's fault.--xoxo 04:23, 20 October 2008 (BST)

GOD-FUCKING-DAMNIT GRIM!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 04:29, 20 October 2008 (BST)

It's something like 27.66 MHz: *crackle* *smash* *silence* 14 minutes ago. but I can't remember exactly. Garum 10:09, 20 October 2008 (BST)

XX.XX MHz: *crash* *static* *silence* (1 hour and 15 minutes ago). That's the real thing - just seen one. Garum 17:16, 20 October 2008 (BST)

Oct 11: Mall FAKs

has anyone noticed a change with FAK gathering in the Malls? At least in Mitchem Mall in Vinetown, it seems that the find rate has dropped, and instead of finding a first aid kit, it says the following: "Searching through other products on the shelves, you manage to find enough supplies for a first-aid kit." Has anyone else noticed this as a change? --Maghat 13:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Havn't seen it myself, not having any need for FAKs and being generally unwelcome in malls, but Kevan suggested that some sort of search rate change has occurred here. Billy Forks 13:39, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I have noticed it as well, along with a huge drop in FAK find rates. FAKs are already tough enough to come by. Why did Kevan dwarf their find rates? Amazing...FAKs are getting scarce, but Newspapers in hospitals are still a dime a dozen, even after all this time the presses stopped!--Kolechovski 22:42, 14 October 2008 (BST)

That's because people keep dropping their newspapers, so the pile never ends.--Thadeous Oakley 17:23, 15 October 2008 (BST)

August 30th

I just noticed something, i tried attacking a generator with a pistol and hit it, i then ran out of ammo but could still use my pistol to attack the generator. "Your pistol is out of ammunition.You smash at the generator. It breaks beyond repair." is this new? is this a bug?--'BP^Tmz 03:44, 31 August 2008 (BST)

July 3rd: Helicopters

It's interesting with the crates also in monroeville (possibly, i head the helicopters, but did not find any crates) - crates sometimes have needles (indeed one i found this morning in malton had 3) if those crates have the same in monroeville, maybe some revives are now possible in that town?--Lardass 14:56, 3 July 2008 (BST)

June 1st: "the fact noted in their profile"

Ummm... my profile says that my Zombie character "CrazySnakeMan2 was a headshot corpse at the end of the Monroeville quarantine."

Considering I'm up and walking around, is this a bug or something? TheUncleBob 17:39, 1 June 2008 (BST)

My profile has been fixed: "CrazySnakeMan2 was among the walking dead at the end of the Monroeville quarantine." TheUncleBob 01:29, 2 June 2008 (BST)

"____ was an undamaged corpse at the end of the Monroeville quarantine." - Considering i'm lying on the ground with a fat headshot i find that somewhat odd...--xoxo 07:11, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I had the same thing yesterday, but now it shows correctly as headshot corpse. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:15, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Well, hopefully when it all gets straightened out, we'll see a chart of some kind that shows how many people were in each category at the end of the quarantine. And, if we're really lucky, The "next signups" will let us "revive" our completely dead characters one time... ;) TheUncleBob 13:47, 2 June 2008 (BST)

The update leaves the date Monroeville opens in ambiguity. Does anyone know when it will open? -- Takiel 23:44 (EST), 05 June 2008

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it seem a bit cheap that MIA level 1 characters with 0 XP count as having "survived"? Honestly, makes me wish I'd killed a lot more of them... they didn't do anything to earn that, other than there being too many of them to kill. Not that I haven't been trying... ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:48, 6 June 2008 (BST)

Well, they did survive, you know?.. a lot of people worked towards getting rid of all of them, but, well, there's a lot of them and a lot of people somehow think that killing a total inactive is a PK. (while i actually think killing zomie is more of PK than killing Lvl1-XP0) --~~~~ [talk] 08:53, 6 June 2008 (BST)

May 28

Whats the whole dark building thing mean? To me it sounds exactly how it is now, unpowered buildings have worse search rates. So i guess i'm missing something. Any word on the household weapons? --xoxo 13:07, 28 May 2008 (BST)

First, dark buildings decrease attack rates. Second, I presume the search rates will now be even worse in those buildings when unlit. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:09, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Im in corless bank, vinetown, whic would seem to be giving the impression of being ruined, even though its vsb and repaired. An example of a darkened building? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:10, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Yep thats it, standing outside the same building shows it to be normal grey in colour. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:11, 28 May 2008 (BST)

And i can hit people with my toolbox. (The preceding comment was NOT a metaphor.)--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:13, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Banana Creme Pies FTW --Thesurveyor 13:14, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Items that can now be used as weapons:

• toolbox (25%, 2 dam) (survivor with maxed melee)
• fuel can (25%, 1 dam) (survivor with maxed melee)
• beer bottle (10%, 3 dam) (zombie)

I don't know if there's others. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:14, 28 May 2008 (BST)

You can poke someone with a newspaper (100% to hit, 0 damage) as well. I like this idea! --Stas 17:27, 28 May 2008 (BST)

You mean you can't beat someone to death with a newspaper?!?! Drat.

It is only 25% for a toolbox if you have hand to hand. Otherwise, it is 5% without anything.--– Nubis 18:33, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Cinemas and clubs are also effected by the darkening. Warehouses and schools and churches seem unnaffected as are junkyards railways and museums. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:16, 28 May 2008 (BST)

FWIW, It would seem that all unpowered Bars & Clubs appear ruined from the outside, but cade levels are what they were/unaffected. This kind of messes with Free Running, in that we can't tell what is & isn't actually ruined. --Samfibian 15:53, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Zoo buildings are also unaffected.--'BP^Tmz 21:44, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Hmm. If you're inside a building next door to a dark but un-ruined building, it appears the same as a ruin, so from inside Mitchem Mall, the Corless bank is dark grey. That's not so good. Garum 13:46, 28 May 2008 (BST)

It does indeed make freerunning slightly more dangerous, while exploring the update it ran into the front line of a zombie assault. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:03, 28 May 2008 (BST)

This was an unintentional glitch. It's now been fixed. --Kevan 16:08, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Just walked into Giles Cinema, which was ruined and "dark" - except the description still says a generator is running. Attempts to repair come up with too dark to repair. Refueling the genny changed nothing. Still dark, still unrepairable. Sounds like something's amiss. --Wyeast 01:56, 30 May 2008 (GMT)

My group had similar problems. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Dead trees can also be used if ya have one for 2 damage.--Dragon fang 07:59, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Yeah, it's 25% for a fir tree. I don't know if you can use plastic ones, maybe not because you need to assemble them. --Howard Bentley 00:48, 4 June 2008 (BST)

attack rate discussion

Attack rates are halved in dark buildings (at least for survivors). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:59, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Can anyone confirm this is survivor only? Its completely pointless otherwise --Drplump 17:48, 28 May 2008 (BST)

It also affects zombies. My zombie broke into an unpowered cinema (which did NOT look ruined, so as Kevan said, that is fixed) and his attack rates were half normal. I didn't get a chance to use tangling grasp to see if its effect was cut in half, but even if not, my best attack would have been claws at 35% for 3 damage or bite at 25% for 4 damage- both with a large change (32.5% or 37.5%) of loosing my grasp.  Swiers 22:18, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I don't see why survivors have been nerfed again... zombies were doing more than fine, as well as winning a lot of the time. Shouldn't survivors have a similar buff like the buff zombies got to ruin? the longer a building remains barricaded the harder it is to attack/ruin etc... or even if a building spends a few weeks at ehb survivors get a higher cade lvl available. Just my 2 cents, you've made the game even more anti-survivor than it was with the 2 zombies and u cant cade addition... And whats with the crappy new weapons that almost no-one will ever use? They are pretty much the same with maxed skills as a fire-axe with no skills... Give us something decent kevan, something actually useful for survivors. Thebattler35 17:11, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I don't know about you, but i will enjoy my newspaper. --H The Person 17:47, 28 May 2008 (BST)

As will I :D. I was disappointed that crucifixes are still useless though. Was looking forward to beating someone to death with one. - Love from Swing XOXOX^Talk 17:59, 28 May 2008 (BST)

That would be cool. Wish we had the 'set fuel can by xxxxx' option, with the option of shooting it & blowing it up for a kill [latent pyro =D]. All this is fine, I suppose, for better or worse. Finding a landing strip in the fields of Monroeville, so I can fly to Malton & take an extended dirtnap would be very nice, indeed.

How hard does it make it to repair a building. If the horde has moved on its only a matter of time before someone can eventually repair it. I think this only helps zombies hold NTs in the area they are in to prevent someone from running over and repairing it to grab some needles and stab 3 people who will dirt nap. --Drplump 17:51, 28 May 2008 (BST)

This is NOT a survivor nerf. The affected building have no useful resources. If they are to hard to repair, leave them ruined, and use them as entry points / indoor revive points. If you MUST clear them out, use combat revives; syringes still work fine in the dark. Actually, a dark building makes an AWSOME survivor safehouse, nearly impossible for zombies to attack, and farily easy to defend with mix if combat revives and normal weapons (for the rotters). Of course, if you pack one full of rotters, its also an awsome zombie safehouse, though still an entry point for survivors.  Swiers 22:18, 28 May 2008 (BST)

A zombies' attack % is halved inside a dark building, too. Meaning a levelled zombie in one of these places has a 25% chance to hit!! And you're calling this a survivor nerf... Basically, you now have godlike new safehouses. Enjoy. I feel like giving up on UD with a fucking 25% hit rate with my levelled zambah, sheeeeeesh Kevan... --18:17, 28 May 2008 (BST) As for your BIG NERF to Free Running ... this adds a small element of what it was like pre-ruin ... back when you didn't have FREE ADVERTISING for entry points... We did just fine then. And, TRPs don't seem to be affected by Darkness, so why are you whining about search rates??? Seriously, taken as a whole, this update cluster is quite pro-survivor... Seriously, this is a frustrating zombie and PKer nerf... --WanYao 18:44, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I was about to add that. Big PK'ing nerf. Unless they bring a genny with them.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:55, 28 May 2008 (BST)

The darkness doesn't really benefit survivors against zombies, just against PKers. Seeing how each side has to spend double the AP as before to remove the other, this lengthens the duration of break-ins, which is more advantageous to zombies than survivors. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:01, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Combat Revive.  Swiers 22:18, 28 May 2008 (BST)

So, the zombie attacks are indeed halved as well? That is a pity. Contrary to what has been said above, survivors, at this point, are not in need of a buff. Logically, I would think that a creature that can pick out the scent of its hordemates blocks away could also fight without being hampered in a darkened building. This would have added an imperative to the survivor routine to light buildings. I do wish this aspect of the update would be rescinded. (The rest is quite acceptable.) --Bette Noir 19:02, 28 May 2008 (BST)

This totally screws zombies. What's half of 65% vs half of 50%, kids? And... Zombie hands do how much damage? Yup, that's right: 3hp. A pistol does 4 or 5, a shotty 8 or 10. This SCREWS zombies much more than survivors. And, this won't increase the cost of Combat Reviving....... --WanYao 19:24, 28 May 2008 (BST)

This screws survivors just as much as zombies. The percentages are irrelevant to this. If there's a problem in the percentages, it's not because of the dark buildings. Like I said, this makes break-ins longer which is advantageous to zombies. This also doubles the use of ammunition needed to get a zombie outside. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:32, 28 May 2008 (BST)

It also screws with decading. unless you go outside. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:34, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Do the math. 1/2 of zombies' crappy damage per AP rate hurts them more than 1/2 of survivors far better damage per AP rate. zombies lose, because it hurts them more, because they have lower hit %s and lower damage rates to begin with. simple. --WanYao 19:43, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Not sure about that - survivors will burn through their stored AP (ie ammo) to less effect, and then have to use the crappy axe. But it is a big relative improvement for combat revives. Garum 19:51, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Not really a factor... Especially since search rates in TRPs are not changed. But the fact remains that skilled zombies will hit only 1 in 4 times in these DARK FORTRESSES, versus about 3 in 10 for skilled survivors. And, when a zombie DOES hit, they still do crappier damage than a survivor. This update makes that differential in hit/damage rates that much more pronounced. And, a longer siege allows more time to run, or heal, or stock up on stored AP... It's a zombie nerf, overall. --WanYao 19:57, 28 May 2008 (BST)

DARK FORTRESSES, my ass. This actually makes the difference between zombies' and survivors' damage per AP smaller. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:10, 28 May 2008 (BST)

In the meantime, until experience shows who is right or someone does actually do the maths, perhaps we should all - survivor sympathizers and zombie sympathizers alike - run around crying 'OH NOES'. Garum 20:33, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Midanian, have you forgotten about barricades? It doesn't matter how long zombies are inside if they can't hit anything and when they are basically fighting through barricades and then fighting super barricades it basically means that while survivors will still be able to kill shit zombies are now shit out of luck because they can't. --Karek^maps?! 21:21, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I actually had forgotten about barricades at that point, but I still consider the doubled ammo-consumption to mostly balance that. You really have to think about this like time had slowed down to half inside dark buildings. Yes, zombies are going to take double the AP to kill survivors, or rip the barricades down again from the inside, but it also takes double the AP for survivors to get rid of the zombies. There are some anomalies to this, like ammo consumption, barricade construction (which is slightly offset by interference) and revivification, some of which I will probably try to rectify later on since they don't make sense to me. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:11, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Except the number parity is a joke, 50% of 65% is a lot less AP lost than 50% of 50%, survivors still have 1 in 3 to hit from what was about 1 in 1.5, zombies have 1 in 4 from what was 1 in 2, that's a very significant increase and basically means that survivors are doing combat like they were one or two skills down while zombies are doing combat like everything was barricades, except since they need 20 hits to kill, on average, it means 80 AP to kill instead of 40, survivors still only need 6 hits, which means from about 9 AP they now spend 18. That's in no way a balanced static nerf.--Karek^maps?! 22:23, 28 May 2008 (BST)

And don't forget the survivor side's ultimate weapon: The combat revive. Who wants to bet that revives are still 100% inside these dark buildings?--The Hierophant 22:30, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Most survivors don't have the balls to do combat revives, so that's not nearly as bad as it sounds. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:43, 28 May 2008 (BST)

The ratio between X and Y is the same as between halved X and halved Y. What this means, is that survivors are still just as much more efficent than zombies inside dark buildings, as what they are outside dark buildings. Just think about it; if everything suddenly cost twice as much AP as it currently does, the balance would not be changed a bit. Things would just be slower. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:43, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Don't forget Healing. The bite attack is already a very hard way to heal yourself. In a dark Building the zombie healing rate is ridiculous bad, while the human healing is unnerfed. --Experiment211 00:44, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, it's another of those anomalies I mentioned (which do seem to crop up). But what people don't seem to understand is that the ratio between zombie and survivor attacking efficencies stays exactly the same. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:52, 29 May 2008 (BST)

That's actually incorrect Midianian, survivors kill at 1/2 the rate they did before, per individual, zombies now effectively can't kill as individuals in dark buildings. There is no world where a 40AP increase vs a 9AP increase is even close to balanced, that's not things being slower, that's zombies spending 4 times the cost to kill people, yeah they may be the same in comparison to each other when taken from half a billion people but they are not comparable in that manner, it would be intentional, or possibly in this case unintentional, skewering of reality through statistics. What this effectively means is that survivors can still kill 4 people a day, more if the RNG smiles on them, their average number of kills drop for survivors will be barely noticeable assuming the RNG doesn't start going wonky like it does with zombies on barricades but, for zombies, they will drop from 1 kill on average to 1 kill on a very very lucky day, and since they still have to deal with barricades it means that, on average, it will take about 8 zombies to kill one survivor.--Karek^maps?! 02:47, 29 May 2008 (BST)

You're equally guilty of skewing the facts (whether intentional or unintentional). "zombies take 4 times the cost to kill", yeah, just like before. And the RNG fucks everyone equally. Zombies were only barely able to kill a player in one day even before this update, so don't try to make it special that now they can't kill one on average. It's just like with survivors, the kill rate is halved. The maximum kill rate stays the same, for both zombies and survivors. No, survivors cannot kill 4 enemies on average in dark buildings. Presuming an optimal load of 13 shotguns and 11 shells (13 * 6% + 11 * 2% = 100%), which takes 48AP (13 * 2AP + 11 * 2AP) to shoot, and gives 37 shots, the maximum a survivor can kill in 48AP is 7,4 non-Body Building, non-Flakked enemies ((37 * 10) / 50). This is exactly the same as before, and is thus completely irrelevant. The average, however, drops to 2,4 kills inside dark buildings (7,4 * (0,65 / 2)). And remember, that is with entirely loaded up on an optimal amount of shotguns and shells, against non-Body Building and non-flakked enemies. Survivors can kill on average only 1,6 enemies that have BB and flaks (((37 * 8) / 60) * (0,65 / 2)) in a dark building. Also remember that most survivors carry lots of other stuff besides shotguns, so the average amount of flakked BB enemies a survivor can actually kill in a dark building is pretty close to 1. And where the fuck did you pull that 8 zombies to kill a survivor? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:11, 29 May 2008 (BST)

He does have a point, though. With 50ap, the maximum daily total, a zombie - assuming they have Vigour Mortis, Rend Flesh, and Death Grip - will cause an average of 37.5hp of damage. That's with an entire day's AP. Assuming the zombie had to use 10ap to tear through barricades first, the number drops to 30hp. Meaning that to kill one survivor, whether with bodybuilding or not, you'd need two zombies coordinating with each other just to take him down. That means, assuming the RNG remains consistent, a survivor group with at least half the attacking zombie numbers can survive in a "dark" building because of the poor attack percentages alone.

All this update does is turn "dark" buildings into little more than number games... namely, whoever has the most, wins. Obviously numbers have always played a large role (especially for zombies), but they have never, as far as I know, been the only factor in playing the game. It also creates a series of "Super Safehouses"; if a building is dark, then no matter which group - zombie or survivor - stays inside said building, assuming they have the right numbers it becomes nearly impossible to remove them. It's also a near-revert back to newbie status. No matter whether you've bought Vigour Mortis, Rend Flesh, and no matter how much Firearms Training you have, all of these skills are practically negated the moment you step into a "dark" building. That's like an update that makes claws only do one point of damage inside hospitals, or pistols only do two points of damage in a stadium.

It's a number game. But with survivors having the choice to pop up with a generator whenever they feel to need it. --Experiment211 15:02, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Not to mention that this update assumes everyone's character to be an idiot. Because apparently, in spite of being inside the city for three years, no survivor has figured out how to at least strike a match and no zombie - in spite of all those nights spent out on the streets or even inside dark, ruined buildings - has learned how to find its way in the dark. In a game that's allowed a certain degree of freedom, this is the only update I know of that's already assumed things for the players. Aside from death, the occasional season weather effect, and zombies blocking barricades when inside a building, every other action in this game has a choice.

This is the only time, ever, that there have been attack penalties. For what, a "cool neu effact"? Updates should be used to fix what errors are in the game, or to give something new to the players. Not to penalise and "grief" everyone who plays the game. And my apologise; wiki newb, so I'm sorry if this edit causes problems or is out of format. --Sheppard 13:53, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Personal experience with hit rates, plus reading the flavor text for my attacks, leads me to believe that zombies get the full normal hit rate IF they have established a "tangling grasp" on the target. That means that zombies, while less effective in the dark as than they are normally, take MUCH less of a hit from fighting in the dark than survivors do. Makes sense, eh?  Swiers 07:56, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Is it me or does the attack rate for zombies has returned to normal in dark buildings ? Or maybe blackmore isn't dark and therefore no penality applies --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 15:18, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Dark#Buildings_Affected. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)

</irony>Well gosh golly, I guess nobody ever puts incomplete information on the wiki, especially not a full 12 hours after an update appears!</irony>
In case you never tried it, the effect of tangling grasp in NORMAL cases is far from obvious; its not noted in your drop-down hit percents, for example. So its not suprising it doesn't show up there if you are in the dark, but my personal expereince is that you hit a LOT more often than 35% when you have a grasp on the target.  Swiers 20:51, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Looking at the discussion, a large portion of building types seem to have been tested already. Certainly important locations like NTs would already have appeared on the list if they were dark. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:56, 29 May 2008 (BST)

well, for some reason i had only 25% chance to hit with claws yesterday, after the update, when i was inside blackmore, and now i dont. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 17:51, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Attacks inside Balckmore should never have been affected; NT buildings don't get dark. Its only clubs, cinemas, banks, and fort armories.  Swiers 20:51, 29 May 2008 (BST)

When determining how much of a "nerf" this is for one side or the other, it's also important to add generators and fuel to the calculation. That's a lot of extra AP survivors are going to have to spend if they want to repair and reclaim a suburb. (Is ransack unaffected by the dark, just like cading and revives? I don't have enough zombie skills to test this myself). I would have preferred it if zombie hit rates had been unaffected, but the generator-fuel part of the equation makes me think that the net impact on both sides might at least be somewhat equal. --Jen 17:56, 29 May 2008 (BST)

How does that work when in a normal suburb they have fuel cans and generators enough for every building and do use them. The maximum AP increase from anything that requires power is nonexistant in the current state of the game because everyone already powers everything anyway.--Karek^maps?! 03:41, 30 May 2008 (BST)

seeing standing up

It seems that you can tell when someone stands up if they are outside a building and you are inside. At least, I'm getting 'a zombie stood up' and 'Player stood up' when inside, and there were no bodies inside with me when I logged out, and no 'Player died of an infection' or 'X killed Y' messages before the 'X stood up' either. Garum 19:39, 28 May 2008 (BST)

could they have been idled out? and then back in again? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:41, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I hadn't thought of that, it's possible, but I've now seen about 5 of these messages from the inside of 3 different buildings, in the ~8 hours since the update occurred. I have no idea at what rate idled-out characters come back, but I'm surprised if it's that high. Garum 19:47, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Id agree. Perhaps it an error, Kevan already had one glitch with this update. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:50, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Just to reiterate the above, I've watched about 15 people stand up outside Nichols while I'm inside. I know they are outside because some are contact listed and they were never inside. Additionally, they are not idled characters coming back.--DonTickles 19:56, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Very flavourish but probably an error, unless kevan wants us to see the horde slowly coming to get you. Leave a message on his talk page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:15, 28 May 2008 (BST)

If it is an error it would, in my opinion, be foolish to fix it, doing so would make the standing thing a super massive revive efficiency buff.--Karek^maps?! 21:36, 28 May 2008 (BST)

A bug, now fixed. --Kevan 23:07, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Oh please please add a function to ignore this a la radio messages, flares etc. it's crazy annoying when you are in a horde/siege situation.--Lardass 20:32, 29 May 2008 (BST)

graffiti, etc.

You can't read graffiti in the dark either. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:06, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Awesome! someone really should start dark article --~~~~ [talk] 21:30, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Preferred format? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:33, 28 May 2008 (BST)

We should start a list of buildings that can be dark. that would be helpful.--'BP^Tmz 21:36, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Hows that then Dark ? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:56, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Well done! --~~~~ [talk] 07:36, 29 May 2008 (BST)

bring your own beer/wine bottle, or getting drunk off one-shot attacks

Beer bottles seem to be single-use items. Hitting gives the message "You break the beer bottle over X's head for 3 damage. They drop to Y HP." and then the bottle vanishes from the inventory. Wine bottles can also be used for attacking and will probably break just like beer bottles. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:40, 28 May 2008 (BST)

new billboard text?

Is this description of billboards new: 'An advertising billboard has been obliterated with missing-person signs.'? I don't remember seeing that before. Garum 01:03, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Been around for a while. --WanYao 01:37, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Always has been there. i once tried to gather all possible descriptions. maybe some day i'll have time to finish that project. --~~~~ [talk] 07:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

New clothing descriptions

I just got nailed by a fuel can and saw that my one piece of clothing went from blood specked to fuel coated. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=862274 thats my profile and you can see the descrption on my black short sleeve shirt.--Dragon fang 03:59, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Awesome! Can you check out it's code? --~~~~ [talk] 07:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I'd stay away from fire. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:18, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Indeed, I'm eager to see what happens when your fuel-soaked character gets hit with a flare. Even if there's no extra damage, changing your clothing status to "badly scorched" would be nice.  Swiers 20:53, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I received two kinds of messages when attacking with a fuel can:

• You smash the can over the zombie's head for 1 damage. Some fuel sloshes onto the ground. They drop to 31 HP.
• You smash the can over the zombie's head for 1 damage, splashing them with fuel. They drop to 47 HP.

It's probably the latter that affects the clothing. I wonder if these change the amount of fuel the can contains, or if there is a possibility for the can to run out of fuel, kind of like when spraypainting. It's a shame I didn't have flares with me. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:53, 30 May 2008 (BST)

<option value="sbkst">a fuel-soaked black short-sleeved shirt. Thats the code for my shirt.--Dragon fang 09:32, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Midianian, I splashed a fuel can onto the floor after hitting someone with it, and it said that my can became very light and so I threw it away. It then disappeared from my inventory. --VI 17:04, 31 May 2008 (BST)

How many times had you hit with it? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:11, 1 June 2008 (BST)

OK, I tested it myself and I think it was my fifth hit (including the hits from yesterday) when it gave me the following message:

• You smash the can over the zombie's head for 1 damage. Some fuel sloshes onto the ground. The can feels light and empty, now, and you discard it. They drop to 56 HP.

Now to find out if it's a static number of hits required to empty the can (or a random chance), and the ratio of "sloshing" hits to "slpashing" hits (only one out of the about five hits was a "splashing" one). And to test the flare :). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:26, 1 June 2008 (BST)

You fire a flare at Dragon Fang, igniting their clothes for 30 damage. Their flak jacket absorbs 6 points of that damage. They drop to 36 HP. HA HA HA HA. a charred and tattered black short-sleeved shirt Hee hee.--Lejes 22:31, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Not something you want to see when ya sign on but if its for the good of an up to date wiki then I'm happy lol--Dragon fang 04:17, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Would any character that dosent have clothing displayed in there profile be immune to this? --Pvt human 11:12, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Not really sure about that. Ya could always test it--Dragon fang 22:03, 3 June 2008 (BST)

If the character is not wearing any clothes, they do not ignite when hit with a fuel can and a flare gun. --GBaldwin81 20:48, 5 June 2008 (BST)

What message did the fuel can attack give? I've received three types of messages already (most recently "...soaking their clothes with fuel."), and I doubt all of them double the damage of flares. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:12, 6 June 2008 (BST)

Unable to repair in darkened buildings

game said:

You are inside Club Record, in the near-darkness of the main dancefloor. With the lights out, you can hardly see anything. A thin layer of dust covers the debris. The building has been quite strongly barricaded. The building is too dark for full repair work.

Although it doesn't say that the buildings is ruined/ransacked, I can't barricade, and I got kicked to street level when trying to freerun into it. It seems you need a generator to fix darkened, ruined buildings now -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:04 29 May 2008 (BST)

ouch. If the dead came along now i don't think we'd get back on our feet so quickly...this makes fixing dead suburbs a big task.--xoxo 12:13, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Not really. A few ruined banks, cinemas, and clubs won't hurt a healthy suburb; indeed, they can serve as designated entry points that would NEVER get over-barricaded.  Swiers 20:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Unless zeds use them as staging posts, staying in them when inactive, charging out for 48ap of damage, before retreating inside, safe in the fact survivors are less likely to cause them damage. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:59, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Not much point in that for the zombies. They'd spend as much AP moving to targets as they save not getting headshot, PLUS they would be inside a building where survivors don't care about them (or even WANT them, holding the place as an un-caded entry point) rather than blocking barricade construction in some useful building. Zombies might as well sleep right outside / inside the building they are attacking, where they can attract ferals / annoy survivors.  Swiers 22:11, 29 May 2008 (BST)

And they can't hear feeding groans either. The only reason for a zombie to stay inside is to occupy a TRP, or other important building -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:36 30 May 2008 (BST)

I've encountered a situation where I've been unable to repair a ruined building, even with a fueled generator installed. http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/05-30-08_0300hrs_PRIVATE/IN_44-79__78c-9ee-3fb.html Yesterday the repair button said 2AP. But no matter how many times I click it, nothing happens and I get the same message. Not losing any AP doing it either. Might this be a bug, or no?--Cheese Knight 05:43, 30 May 2008 (BST)

You need to power the building before you can repair.--xoxo 13:23, 30 May 2008 (BST)

The iWitness I provided shows that the building was powered when I attempted to repair it. But just went and checked on it, and it seems to be repaired now. Although I still don't see how it couldn't have worked for me.--Cheese Knight 16:10, 30 May 2008 (BST)

It was reported as a bug and kevan has fixed it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:35, 30 May 2008 (BST)

feeding groans

this might be something else. I was inside(lion enclosure) when I got this message "You heard a low groaning from very close by." two times, in the space of 2 hours. now, normally I would assume that a zombie broke in and groaned, however there is no notice of the cades coming down, which leads me to think that you can now hear feeding groans from inside. At least in certain buildings. I'm thinking the zoo buildings and junkyards, seeing as how both are pretty much the same already(can't be ransacked).--'BP^Tmz 18:08, 30 May 2008 (BST)

ive seen that recently as well. Maybe if someone groans outside the building you're in? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:20, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Thats what I meant. if a zombie groans outside your (select kind of) building you can hear it from inside. this requires spading.--'BP^Tmz 18:27, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Spading? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:29, 30 May 2008 (BST)

It's a gamers term. It basicly means research.--'BP^Tmz 18:32, 30 May 2008 (BST)

And i thought you meant battering. Still, ive learnt something. I can leave now. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:34, 30 May 2008 (BST)

I predict ghost towns

Now Ruined suburbs will NEVER be repaired because that would require putting a generator in EVERY SINGLE BUILDING just to fix it. What's the point then? We'll have resource islands and a ruined suburb. --Rogue 02:12, 31 May 2008 (BST)

not every building. just banks, cinimas, and clubs. it makes the game harder yes. but harder means funner.--'BP^Tmz 02:18, 31 May 2008 (BST)

Suburb with a few ruined buildings != ghost town. Ruined buildings are actually very nice to have in a safe suburb, because they are easily spotted entry points that can't be over-barricaded.  Swiers 06:01, 31 May 2008 (BST)

Unless all survivers make a habit of sleeping in those ruined buildings, it will be much easier for zombies to find and kill any surviver populations which = ghost towns. --Pvt human 15:23, 2 June 2008 (BST)

April 4

I've posted that video cameras have been disabled to the news page, i was unable to do a lot of confirmation regarding the actual diaries as only one of my low levels even has a camera, but from what little i could tell they seem to be the same - just no longer able to be added to. Please note a posting on the talk page for video diaries from the creator for a source.--Lardass 23:51, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Monroeville Stats

I noticed that the total population of Monroeville can be found on the stats page. Is this new? --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 04:43, 3 April 2008 (BST)

No, it's been there since 29th February --~~~~ [talk] 10:24, 3 April 2008 (BST)

April 1

As an April fools, Kevan has introduced a facebook parody, so far I've seen emotes, poking, friends and joining of events such as 'the fourth Seige of Caiger Mall'! Not sure what else there is to do with it. Acoustic Pie 12:46, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Nice one! i liked these: "<name> is attending NecroTech Training Seminar", "<name> and a zombie are now friends", "<name> is starting a trip to Malton today". and icons rock! --~~~~ [talk] 13:50, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Kevan should keep it like this...--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:24, 1 April 2008 (BST)

It would be kinda nice, to have the visual stuff be permenentish.--Karek^maps?! 18:45, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Personally I disagree, it kinda looks out of place but I suppose if they were kept I could live with it. However no poking, facebook took the fun out of that for me. And then if it is kept I have a sneaky suspicion we make be seeing messages of 'I facebooked your mum, (a.k.a you character). Hence it's too real, but some images would be nice. Acoustic Pie 19:42, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Was I supposed to ask before updating the News? ----Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||21:01, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Nope, no need. --Toejam 21:59, 1 April 2008 (BST)

All this and no downloadable applications for my profile page??!? Am I suppose to be impressed??!? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:19, 3 April 2008 (BST)

March 28

The zombies that have been headshot before the updates are so pissed off that they want to kick Kevan's ass. --Violent-kun 13:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, i have been HS before the update and suffered nothing. Anyway, i dont like the idea of being removed from monroeville if i get HS. While it seems unfair that humans can't be revived, they atleast can still play the city as a zombie. Getting HS removes that chance. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

it's a temporary game. and a real endgame scenario. i got bored to death with M-ville. then my survivor died, and i stopped playing completely. but now i might just use my two zombie alts... to make sure the zeds win, bwahahaha! it's suddenly interesting again... --WanYao 16:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I joined M-ville because I thought the "hold out against inevitable zombie victory for as long as possible" sounded like an awesome endgame, in and of itself. (Wouldn't the game pretty much be over when the zombies won? Just like it'll be over if/when the survivors win?) But in the first scenario...people can at least keep logging in and playing, until the end. The permanent elimination deal is kinda a sock to the gut. So even though I'm playing the survivor-side, I'm rather disappointed about the headshot as well. --Jen 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The headshot message seems to strongly imply you could eventually get to play your zombie character again in Malton.  Swiers 02:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a Headshot kill a survivor permanently, keeping them from coming back as a zombie? --Wikizombie 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Headshots only apply to zombies, afaik. In other words, if you get killed as a survivor, its not ever a headshot. At least, that's how it's always been in Malton.  Swiers 02:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean there won't be a stats page for Monroeville before it closes/resets/whatever is done? And if one is made would there be a tally of headshot bodies instead of revivifying? It would be very interesting information to see to say the least(although I am already kinda expecting certain results from what I have seen in Monroe anyway).--Karek^maps?! 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

March 25

Ohh, me likey! After the new monroeville accounts creation closed it'll be even more interesting to see the human/zombie stats... Hordes ravaginf town for last standing survivors that hide somewhere... How long would it take?.. --~~~~ [talk] 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

February 25

I hope one of us gets construction before the one of the zombies gets memories of life! --volt 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how temporary Monroeville will be? -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be around for at least three weeks, for the duration of Diary of the Dead being in cinemas. If it turns out to be popular with players as a hardcore no-revive map, or if NecroTech start setting up camp there, I'd consider keeping it around indefinitely, if I didn't think it'd split the player base too much. --Kevan 09:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think keeping it as a hardcore map is a good idea. People can play both sides. --Amanu Jaku 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you die do you become a zombie? or you will not be able to use that char again? --Violent-kun 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If a zombie takes a headshot is it dead for good? -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard there are no cades and once you die, you die for good.--Finis Valorum 09:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to get the Construction skill to build barricades, hence no barricades for newbies. But survivors can at least close doors. Zombies without the Memory of Life skill cannot open doors. Oh man, I almost forgot how it sucks to be a newbie zombie. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that it uses the same database for names as Malton. I assume we will have to make new names for the new city. --Amanu Jaku 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevan confirms it. Any new characters for Monroeville are added to the overall database, thus you have to make brand new characters if you want to play in the new city. --Amanu Jaku 10:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Survivor should be afraid of PKers. --Violent-kun 11:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevan, I love UD, but I'm kinda peeved about your contest man. Monroeville is supposed to take place in the US, but only UK players can win prizes? Does not compute. -ZSandmann 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The prizes have been put forward by the agency that's handling the Diary of the Dead launch in the UK. --Kevan 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Kevan, I won't be taking part in the contest then, seems biased to me.

This is an awesome idea but there are a few things, uhm, specifically Stats.html type stuff. Are there Monroeville stats or are they merged in with the Malton stats, same with groups and such, would being a member of a group in Monroeville increase their Stats.html group size or is it seperate. If it's merged it could get pretty confusing and kinda makes the Stats page useless.--Karek^maps?! 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any idea where and how often you can find a video recorder?--Remnant Matt 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you start as a consumer you will have one by default. Otherwise, you can find them in malls.--Finis Valorum 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, carry on any discussion about the February 25th update in monroeville... there is no need to fork the discussion in two separate pages. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, wth? A new map? Change? WUT? .... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Any chance vid cams will show up in Malton now?--Dragon fang 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe they will. I just checked my settings, they show up as a valid item in the item checklist. I tried searching a mall Tech Store a little, but I had no success. --Hhal 17:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I hope they come over. I like them. Gives ya something to do when zombies aren't trying to eat ya lol.--Dragon fang 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

February 23

Where has the snow gone? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It usually melts this time of year. My question is with all the red 'burbs now and the population tipped in zombie favor, how long before a pro-survivor change is implemented ? Personally, I hope it is quite a while. The survivors have had the upper hand for too long. They should have to cluster, protect, and work together to survive ! --Qazwsx 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, we deserved to be punished for Kevan's negligence. --Hhal 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

January 23

New tactics for dealing with Jan 23 update

No idea exactly where to put this, but this was experienced by a friend:

1. 26.17 MHz: "Hildebrand under attack. WE NEED FIGHTERS!!!" (14 hours and 55 minutes ago)
2. 26.17 MHz: "le sigh. you harmanz are so backwards you need a zambah" (12 hours and 3 minutes ago)
3. 26.17 MHz: "The mall is falling. Whoop de doo, its only a mall" (12 hours and 3 minutes ago)
4. 26.17 MHz: "There are three more nearby" (12 hours and 3 minutes ago)
5. 26.17 MHz: "They cant hold it forever and attack elsewhere..." (12 hours and 2 minutes ago)
6. 26.17 MHz: "...so why the ..." *static* "... do you fight for it?" (12 hours and 2 minutes ago)
7. 26.17 MHz: "Spread out to the buildings in the area" (12 hours and 2 minutes ago)
8. 26.17 MHz: "Avoid sleeping in resource buildings" (12 hours and 2 minutes ago)
9. 26.17 MHz: "Free run across and snipe the horde from random directions" (12 hours and 1 minute ago)
10. 26.17 MHz: "kill any zombie you touch so they dont follow you home" (12 hours and 1 minute ago)
11. 26.17 MHz: "When your building gets attacked by a force..." (12 hours and 1 minute ago)
12. 26.17 MHz: "...that cant easily be repelled..." (exactly 12 hours ago)
13. 26.17 MHz: "... evacuate to surrounding areas," (exactly 12 hours ago)
14. 26.17 MHz: "battles arent decided by one building" (11 hours and 59 minutes ago)
15. 26.17 MHz: "Unless, of course, you are stupid enough to go down with it" (11 hours and 58 minutes ago)
16. 26.17 MHz: "Suburbs fall after a mall because all the defenders die" (11 hours and 57 minutes ago)
17. 26.17 MHz: "if the defenders leave the mall, the suburb lives" (11 hours and 57 minutes ago)
18. 26.17 MHz: "The zombies get an empty victory" (11 hours and 57 minutes ago)
19. 26.17 MHz: "and a living hell for the time they spend in suburb" (11 hours and 56 minutes ago)
20. 26.17 MHz: "Current survivor tactics will no longer work" (11 hours and 56 minutes ago)
21. 26.17 MHz: "The days of headbutting the zombie fist are gone" (11 hours and 55 minutes ago)
22. 26.17 MHz: "Roll with the punches, spread out and revive the fallen" (11 hours and 54 minutes ago)
23. 26.17 MHz: "when the zombies take a building, they get only a handful" (11 hours and 54 minutes ago)
24. 26.17 MHz: "Zombies are only effective when you crowd up and let them..." (11 hours and 53 minutes ago)
25. 26.17 MHz: "...butcher you like cattle at the abbatoir" (11 hours and 53 minutes ago)
26. 26.17 MHz: "Scatter and they cant do any damage" (11 hours and 52 minutes ago)
27. 26.17 MHz: "Now, if you dont mind, im off to rob the kilt store" (11 hours and 51 minutes ago)

--Chelsea Dagger 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I hate River Tactics. :( --Sexy Rexy Grossman 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

HAHA! That was me! (With Zogor in Nichols, shortly before i did actually rob the kilt store :P ) --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling out the New Scent Death Map

If you are interested in figuring out what exactly the colors on the map mean in terms of zombie / dead body numbers, please go to Talk:Zombie Skills/Scent Death. I need lots of Iwitness records that show scent death maps, with associated records showing the numbers of zombies and bodies in the appropriate (most likely central) locations.  Swiers 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And Barricade Rates Too

Um, does anyone have any figures on how the presence of zombies in a building affects barricading rates? I guess a good place to get some statistics would be Giddings, but my zombie character is already there so my survivor can't go near :P -- Ashnazg 0237, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

It's currently being worked out by our faithful little stats junkies here.--Karek^maps?! 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a

Yay!!!!! Pro-Zombie updates at last! I haven't been able to test them out yet, but these sound good. Hopefully, we'll now be able to turn the tide against the survivors and stop ourselves from fading away. -- Mordac the Refuser 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this game change either, life's even more diffcult now. But surviors will adjust. e.g.: I don't know whether this is the right place to discuss it - but this new feature makes combat reviving tactical option, doesn't it? you can't spend less AP to get rid of a zed other than reviving him. just turn up to 5zeds in survivors and still have 10AP to barricade. (if that question is wrong here, please show the newbie the right place) --John die Kralle 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how survivors outnumber zeds over two to one at the moment, I reckon life ain't difficult enough. It's a game balance change, if it shifts too much to the zeds I bet Kevan would do something for the survivors. --Aeon17x 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"life's even more difficult now" - I beg to differ. You guys have had things WAY too easy. One active survivor with construction could indefinitely hold back fifty well-coordinated zombies. Sometimes I get the impression that you survivors are spoiled.  ;) -- Mordac the Refuser 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you say one survivor can hold back fifty zombies? That's utter bullshit. One survivor can barely hold back one zombie. Now once even a small group of zombies break in to a heavily populated building we become sitting ducks. I'm in Giddings Mall right now trying to re'cade with about 30 zeds standing around, I succeed at best once every 5-6 ap. after which the cades are immediately knocked back down again. This update has severe balancing issues. --Koli ^T 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How many zombies did you think were actively hitting the cades, didn't you wonder why no survivors were dying. Misrepresenting reality ftw, you get a gold star Koli.--Karek^maps?! 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

b

Thanks a lot Kevan. Couldn't you give humans something new as well? (eg a new weapon or skil...) Now we have to deal with super zombies that can automatically stop barricading. It would make a lot more sense if zeds had to spend an AP to "block the door" or something like that...5 HP for falling seems a bit harsh too. Why not just let the zombies use AK-47's while you're at it. Thanks a lot. TerminalFailure

You guys got 8 toys in the time between kevan rolling out this and the last, actually zombie useful zombie addition. Specifically: Clothes, Specific Searches (Autodropping crap you dont ant saves huge amount of IP hits), dumping ciprses (sic) from forts, free visible entry points from the street (Ruin), pipe barricade, Museum decorations, Facility repair, and christmas flavour items. Again. Zombies in that time got ruin, which was a carefully disguised zombie nerf. It helps humans more than it helps zombies (Read, doesnt help zombies at all), and they got exp from attacking cades. but so little its practically meaningless given thier minsicule hit rates. 369 days ago was the last useful one, and that was being able to tell if a human was already infected. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Grim s, I hate to say this to an authority figure, but you are so obviously partisan it isn't even funny.

1. Clothing- completely irrelevant to combat/survival, can also be worn by zombies

2.Specific Searches- zombies don't need to search to attack

3.corpse dump- costs 5 AP, remember?

4.If you don't like ruin, don't be dumb enough to buy it or use it. It can prevent the use of resource buildings and requires the removal of all zeds to fix. In addition search odds are decreased, so the skill is useful. By the way, why not call all zombie skills "carefully disguised zombie nerf"'s while you're at it? Your statements go beyond paranoia and into partial insanity.

5.The reason updates are so few and far in between is that zombies don't NEED new skills. They can simply stand up again, make survivors take damage even when they move away and can use human items and skills.

Think before you write and try to at least pretend to be neutral. You're a sysop, remember? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerminalFailure (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I don't think sysops are required to be neutral about in-game matters such as these. - Whitehouse ^T 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not required to be neutral, and all i have are the sums of my experiences. I have the experience of being the Warmaster for the RRF for 2005-mid 2006. I have the experience of actually leading a zombie horde, the Drunken Dead. I have the experience of playing as a feral zombie. I have the experience of playing as a feral human. I have the experience of playing as a properly coordinated human (Guns of Brixton), working as one of their dedicated NT's. I have the experience of playing the solo pker, i have the experience of a dual nature character, i have the experience of playing a death cultist too. I have the experience of playing the solo rotted Pker, and i have the expereince of playing a coordinated PKer (Malton DEA). I have played the game from every conceivable nin cheating angle. I should note that all my characters are presently humans, three of them have brain rot. Im going to be sending Gorbonzo up to play DNA extractor tag with the MOB. Zogor is going to wander around and maybe find a niche educaing humans how to survive, Hank will keep shooting people, and grimchie, well, my friend Grimchie will probably still be an insane blade weilding maniac.

1: Clothing was a fun flavour update for human. Zombies get a little, but they cant get the cool shit like kilts, spiked collars, bowler hats and tartan slippers from the streets. They get a really poor choice. All the distinctive crap is gone. Its flavour, and its flavour zombies for the most part miss out on.

2: Humans do search to attack, and given the insane find rates for thier gear, easily have a higher damage per AP than zombies do. This goes doubly so if you decide to be fair, and include barricades in the zombies "stocking up time" column for breaking and entering. Humans deal far more damage per ap than zombies could even dream of.

3:In answer to your corpse dump: Standing up, costs 6 ap remember. 15 if you dont have Ankle Grab. Also, it costs only 1ap to dump a corpse normally from a building. If you meant forts... well, on top of the obvious headshot, the zombies have to break into the gatehouse again. Thats another good 50ap to get in for another headshot.

Ruin is, unfortubnately, very attarctyive to random zombies and ferals. The point remains: A zombies ability should not so overtly benefit humans. In the case of ruins, they advertise entry points which reduce the number of stranded harmanz on the streets for zombies, and help humans be more mobile because they can more easily find thier entry points in unfamiliar areas.

4:For your fifth point, you would need magic psychic powers to be able to make that one fly. The fact of the matter is that the zombie metagame has been the only thing keeping the zombie population afloat. look at what happens when humans start to metagame a tiny amount? Ciager 1, 2, Giddings 1, Santlerville, and now Pitneybank. All massive zombie defeats. Zombies have to work very hard to get the numbers to 40%, and the humans dont have to lift much of a finger to get to 60%

5: I have never once pretended top be neutral. I just have a more coprehensive POV than you do, and a much better grasp of the game, its mechanics and how people intereact on both sides. This alone makes me more qualified to know whats going on than you are. Feel free to continue spouting nonsense. I have nothing to do but shoot them down. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaining about zombies not being able to get cool clothing is sorta weak sauce. I just went and got my rotter revived at an RR Clinic, then went and got the clothes I wanted by being smart and careful. It wasn't even mildly difficult to do, and now I have pretty-pretty blood-spattered clothing to wear while I'm knocking down doors in West Boundwood. Yeah, it's a little harder for a zombie to get those clothes than it is for a harman, but at the same time we're generally less concerned that they stay clean when we die. --Diano 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Grimch is right. Grimch takes into account factors you're ignoring, or fail to comprehend. Kevan made a move in the right direction with these new updates. Hopefully, I'll be able to test them out in practice soon... --WanYao 04:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

c

So, survivors are now unable to barricade if there is a single zombie inside a building. I tried to barricade a building with three zombies in, but they lurched to stop me. I tried three times, but I don't know if it's automatic or what.--Jonathon Quimby 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Not impossible to barricade. Just a high chance that you'll be stopped. I'm unsure whether this chance increases with the number of zombies inside a building. This is exactly the way something like this would be played out "in real life"... You either flee for your life or fight to your death (or theirs). Zombies enter from the main door and work from there, keeping a watch for actives etc etc - how is a harman expected to bypass 20 zombies working from the door-in, barricade up to heavily barricaded in 10 seconds or less and run off again ...It used to be stupid but now the playing field is a little more level --TouchingVirus 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but if we stuck exclusively to realism, survivors would able to dispatch zombies PERMANENTLY with a single headshot. Besides, zombies didn't have it that bad before. The only siege they ever officially lost was the First Caiger Siege. --Hhal 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the only siege they've ever officially won is Caiger 3. Sieges aren't one day things, they are over time.--Karek^maps?! 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, no, I'm fairly sure LUE won every single seige they were ever a part of until their active numbers fell dramatically due to lack of interest. It went to show that zombies in lage numbers, coordinated properly to take advantage of survivor defense being reactionary, are unstoppable even when met with an equal or higher number of survivors.--Xshu 07:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LUE were only in one thing that could be considered a siege, and that was at Dowdney and even then it was only about 3 days. A siege is over time, LUE didn't take long enough anywhere for it to ever be correctly called a siege.--Karek^maps?! 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If we stuck exclusively to realism, people would fall PERMANENTLY with a single headshot.A Lost Boy 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You lose your footing on the ruined building, and fall to the street below, injuring yourself.

Damage from falling seems to be 5 HP. Tried free running into a ruin three times until I ran out of AP. Only fell out on the third try. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I had three tries. All three tries I lost 5 HP from falling into a snowbank. A Lost Boy 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, not sure if this is relevant, but had an impression to have more injuries when already on low health. However, not enough data to judge seriously --~~~~ [talk] 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

d

Dammit Kevan! For only the second time in UD history, survivors are set to win a mall siege, and you have to go and ruin it! You may have a zombie character at the siege, but that doesn't give you the right to nerf every survivor in the city just so the zeds can win. --Hhal 16:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

...survivors are set to win a mall siege, and you have to go and ruin it! >> Too bad that's exactly what we're aiming for. --Aeon17x 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

They won Giddings 1, Caiger 1, Caiger 2. Thats three, and thats not even counting Santlerville, which has a mall of its own. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think BB2 at Giddings can also be called a survivor victory. It would have taken a miracle for zombies to make any progress there, and the majority of organized zombies already felt it would be smart to move on. I don't think this update is gonna tip it, since there's just so many survivors there.  Swiers 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I also recall a significant siege of dowdney in april-may of last year that was turned away. it is hugely unfair to say that survivors never beat zombies. that's just blatantly untrue.--Lardass 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a zombie apocalypse in the first place if zombies wouldn't be "winning", huh? --Snaip 14:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also it wouldn't be an apocalypse in the first place if nobody would be "whining" ;) --~~~~ [talk] 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone makes good points, but honestly, the scales seem to have tipped too far in the favor of the zeds. I completely understand and support the idea, because it's kind of dumb that a zombie break-in was so simple to stop, but the percentages to barricade are so low now that breaches become practically irreparable, and even an overwhelming survivor force has its collective ass handed over if a plurality of the zombies are even half-awake. Because death is barely a speedbump for zombies (I don't even want to hear about AP penalties for Headshot -- one of my characters killed the same zombie twice at Giddings today, only to see him show up a third time through the breach), it's really friggin' tough for survivors to kill and dump fast enough to keep any zombies out in order to seal up and barricade. It pushes the bounds of reason too far, in my eyes, even if the zombie-dedicated think it's totally fair to undercut long-held survivor tactics just because they're outnumbered. People play survivors, guys; just accept it and kill us more often for it until some of us convert, but kill us fairly. Please? --Diano 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times have you actually tried barricading with zeds in? The chance for failure isn't that high. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering I just said the character was at Giddings, the answer is the expected "several". Between trying to barricade and trying to reload on ammo while trying to kill zombies, I'm consistently failing at making a dent. While you can say, "Well, lesson learned, right?", my feeling is that the lesson here is that the percentages are unbalanced. It's my opinion, and I'm not of the belief that I'm any more correct than the people who disagree with me. I just don't care for how this feels, as a player.--Diano 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Several". Couldn't be any more specific? As in about three, five, ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred? We all know how cranky the RNG can get, so unless your answer is in the larger end of the spectrum, it could be just a streak of bad luck. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly counting each attempt for scientific data -- I'm not a percentage collector, and generally when I'm throwing up barricades I'm doing it in a desperate attempt not to die. If I had to estimate, I'd say I've probably blown anywhere from 40 to 60 AP throwing up barricades, with negligible success (I don't recall succeeding past getting anything to Lightly, but I'm also not monitoring how fast the zombies are tearing them down). Do remember that I'm using the word "feel" a lot regarding my opinion; this feels unbalanced to me. I'm not privy to the actual math going on, but I'm very aware of how many times I've died over the last three days trying to defend that Mall (it's 4, which doesn't sound like a lot until you factor in how many survivors are currently there). --Diano 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tested this with several characters, one of them at Giddings. It's not that constructing barricades is very hard, it's just that at Giddings the zombies rip down the barricades damn fast. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a zombie apocalypse game and you want to be able to hide behind barricades and only see zombies once for 5-20 minutes a day? No, frequent break-ins is exactly how it should be for the sake of balance, fun, and reality of the game. You're complaining about Giddings, but speaking of Giddings, there are over 800 zombies there and over 1000 survivors, break-ins should be frequent and large, you and everyone else who keeps using Giddings as an argument conveniently forgets to mention that for a whole week now 70+ zombies break in and get dumped, probably because that isn't convenient to your claims of this being unbalancing. No, more zombies get in but that hasn't changed the balance in any such significant way, the barricades still go up but now you have to actually interact with the zombies. Whoa be me, the game is gonna die and survivors are screwed because they need to play against the opposite side balance is no more!--Karek^maps?! 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that anyone speaking up, even politely, to say, "This feels unbalanced" is getting leapt on and insulted for holding that opinion? I don't want to start bandying about insults or anything, but the zombie players seem to have a terminal case of sour grapes about all of this. Yeah, the survivors are winning at Giddings -- they also outnumber the zombies and are working together surprisingly well despite being undercut by an infestation of PKers and the recent developments, but it's starting to look like we're all dead there; it's just a matter of time. I'm not crying about it, I'm not afraid of it, and I'm not saying it's the end of the game -- what I am saying is that if over 100 survivors cannot keep up the barricades in a building, that seems wrong to me. Everyone keeps saying that survivors should be more mobile and fluid, but why does the "strength in numbers" principle seem so wrong to you guys? It's what works for you.--Diano 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's roughly because zombies didn't say shit when the DNA Extractors were changed or any of the other unbalancing crap in the past and yet survivors still walk around like the game has ever been balanced in anything but their favor. If it seems a little unbalance and you think the game has been balanced you're being annoying. This is the second real step towards balance since early 2006.--Karek^maps?! 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And where that's your point of view, the opposite end is that you're equally annoying to those of us who liked how the game was running before (whatever balance issues there may be -- and I'm speaking as someone who plays on both sides of the spectrum), and dislike this change. The "It's about damn time the zombies got more power, we are so, sooooo underpowered!" camp is every bit as bothersome to listen to as survivors crying that they can't hold a mall solo. You're not sitting on moral high ground just because you're a minority.--Diano 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombies hardly got more power, all that has changed is that kicking zombies out matters now.--Karek^maps?! 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kicking out zombies is THE top priority in any siege, past or present. The point is that it is now extremely difficult to KEEP them out. As for the underpowered complaints coming from the zeds, here's my two cents: In Dawn of the Dead, as I recall, the zombies finally got in because of DotD's PKers. Not because they were strong enough to bash in or stop the characters from barricading. Also, I recall that there were only 4 people in the survivor group, and they managed to clear an ENTIRE MALL on their own. UD zombies are actually massively overpowered by traditional zombie standards. --Hhal 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only seen one of those movies but in it they walked through a lake to get into the city making use of their semi-immortality to get past the survivors defenses. UD zombies are not traditional zombies, but in the "traditional" sense, there is actually lore of zombies that are basically stronger humans.--Karek^maps?! 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Land of the Dead. If I remember right, the zombies only figured out how to walk under the water because they had a super zombie leader. --Hhal 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

a point lost in all this ... made, i think, but forgotten... did it ever occur to you that the cades weren't going up because in fact they were actively being torn down by the zombies??? --WanYao 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just 'cade-strafed a non-descript with one zombie inside from wide open to VSB++ with no problems. I caded, killed, dumped, in that order, it was just like old times, pre-update, no big problems at all. perhaps more zombies, less chance of success? well, that's a GOOD thing, as it ought to be... I think the survivor partisans are whinging again. or still. ZOMG zmobeez R overpowered!!!! yaaaawn. --WanYao 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A single zombie doesn't block the doors.--Karek^maps?! 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

e

scent death now works exactly like a NT scan, with the execption of one thing. the image you get when using scent death does not have buildings on it. just a black square with green dots showing where others of your group is.--'BP^Tmz 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scent.JPG <-- There are squares. They are darker (i.e. black) if there are no zombies or dead bodies present and the other way around, I guess. The square I (green dot) was in had 5 zombies and 8 dead bodies.-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh. you're right. although to see them I have to click and drag over the pic, but that could be my computer.--'BP^Tmz 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

f

Strong Kill - Ah wait ... wrong page, right vote. "The dead are learning ...", let's be honest, this has always been a phrase that summoned the "spam"s and "kill"s on the suggestions page. Now in addition to preventing humans from barricading a ruined building, zombies even do worse things, just by standing around. I'm okay with the other news. Zeds obviously need a hand. But as I mentionned several times, this has to be done by making the game more attractive to new zombie players. Not for brainrotten siege-zombies.-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. --Hhal 16:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivors can still build barricades when zombies are inside, just at a reduced rate, meaning zombies that respond to groans are less likely to get locked out by a newly built VHB barricade. Lower barricade levels on buildings under siege (which is where groans come from) makes the game MUCH more attractive to ferals and other "new zombie players".  Swiers 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PsychoLyche, The zombies in urban dead are not stupid, the argument that they are is people actively ignoring the game flavor that we are provided. Zombies in urban dead aren't stupid, just different. As for the barricade thing, I seriously doubt it's a big amount, not that it matters much when the base rate is near 100% as not even 50% would be a balanced reduction.--Karek^maps?! 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That has been the survivor line for years, and its just as wrong now as it was when it was first uttered. The problem has been more of a fundamental balance problem rather than an attarctiveness problem. Id actually advise against kevan tinkering with this unless the ratio hit 30/70 in favour of zombies, if only because the shock value of this implimentation will take some getting used to, and zombies with their mighty metagame will take advantage of it and trounce a few thousand harmanz quickly before they learn to roll with the punches instead of charging headfirst into them, as is their standard policy at present. All this does is mean that battles now need to be spread over a larger area, and humans should spread out instead of gatehring for an "epic" siege in one small building. Groups in the past have shown that its possible for small groups of survivors to win out over an enemy with vast numerical superiority by spreading out and being coordinated. Its time humans learned to do what zombies had to learn to do two years ago. Coordinate and cooperate for the common good. being smart would be a good help. You can read my guide in the guides section for more info. It is still applicable to this changed world. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still wrong. As for the balance, there probably will be a upsurge of zombies/ruins, happens after every "perceived" zombie buff, it even happened after ruin, it will still be survivors acting scared, not zombies actually being better as a class.--Karek^maps?! 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course the zombies in UrbanDead are NOT stupid. But they should not be encouraged to ACT stupid (i.e. staying in one square, instead of rambling on and searching for more braa!nz) by giving them an "innate siege bonus" so to say. Oops, I really didn't want to fuel this discussion that much. Note to all: trust Kevan; keeping a game with this many players balanced in any way is a task he has proven capable of. I'm sure he won't "ruin it all".-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The game has never, ever been balanced. Its only been the level of zombie metagame that made it look like it was. The closest we ever got to true balance was just before kevan implimented poweed searches. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor Kevan, don't listen to him ... (well, humans just stroll through the city picking daisies and shooting zombies, without the need of metagaming, I see. Do you know the game has been created in a way that zombies are superior by nature? They can win and end the game. No humans left. So by "balance" I mean "good chances of survival for the game itself", which doesn't entirely depend on percentages, as you seem to think.)-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 09:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My my my, you seem to be claiming you have these amazing mind reading powers, because i have not once said anything about percentages, indeed, on kevans talk page i have repeatedly said that the percentages dont tell the story, so your mind powers are massively flawed. Perhaps they are instead locked onto a bullshit satellite in low orbit? A properly balanced game does not end in all survivors killed and eaten, and saying that just because its possible as a theoretical endgame doesnt mean that its something that features intoa dicsussion on current balance. It would probably be far more difficult for zombies to wipe out all humans than it would be for the humans to revive all the zombies. Its possible now that they can revive rotters. is it relevant in a discussion on game balance past and present? No. A total victory scenario is and shouldnt be a realistic goal, and is irrelevant when discussing game balance, which if achieved properly results not in a nasty swing to eitehr side, but a stable equilibrium that both sides find fun and enjoyable, and can be maintained with similiar amounts of metagame (Either lots or none, either way the game would be balanced based on just its skills and abilities). We have never had that. Zombies have been forced to horde since day one to be both effective and scary (Though now that the shock value is gone, the fear has slipped into the past). im keeping an open mind about this update, but im pretty sure that if survivors switch to a style of play thats feeasable rather than the current unfeasable one (Ie, rolling with punches, spreading out, and such instead of charging headlong into them, hoping to beat back the zombie punch with a bunch of face) there may need to be further shifts. the game has had, and probably still has deep problems, most stemming from kevan accidentally supporting sides for playing stupidly and losing. I wrote a guide on sensible play and smart survival strategies, its in the guides section of this wiki. i suggest you take a nice long look at it, and amend your playstyle to suit some or all of its suggestions. Youw ill swiftly notice a dramatic increase in your lifespan, even in fully infested suburbs. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't be pi**ed now. I THOUGHT you were talking about percentages; you weren't; it's fine. (Funny, I've had your "Guide to staying alive" in my watchlist for a long time now, because I find it to be the most hilarious and commendable guide ever written. It took a while to get the Grimch=Grim thing. Congrats on that guide!) I agree, zombies are not strong enough, but game news that actually make them more sedentary aren't the way this should work, imo.-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The changes are mostly of benefit to attacking zombies, and thier whole skillset is tailored towards chasing down humans and eating them. Its not the most sociable activity, ill admit, but its what they do. Sure it can be used in a different way, but only if the zombies like having an emty tummy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

g

Finally good news for zombies centric players. People who are complaining about these edits obviously doesnt play zombie and have no idea how hard their "life" is. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also playing as a zombie and my life is pretty good. Because I w a l k a r o u n d which is what zombies do, when they are hungry. This ain't a war game with two parties fighting over single buildings or regions. It's zombies against humans. Zombies roam and kill, humans try to defend their homes. Now it's "zombies defend their homes, humans run trying to find resources elsewhere".-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 09:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The survivor skillset has always been tailored towards the highly mobile guerilla fighter, not the stand up and fight siege mentality that has arisin in the last two years through stubborn persistent trenchcoatery. Is it any suprise that players who use their skillset to its fullest live longer and safer than others? is it any suprise that an group of 15 harmanz drove off a horde of 50 doing it? No, not really, unless you are a trenchcoater. In zombie movies, standing and fighting has universally resulted in one outcome: The zombies get inside, and everyone dies horribly, except those few smart people who run when the opportunity presents itself. With a class that doesnt recover from death as easily as the other, standing and fighting on their terms should end in failure, as you are playing to their strengths, not yours. Zombies are built to be the seige engines of the city, and you humans are the people that dodge these sweeping siege engines, then snipe at them from all sides in an orgy of zombie death, instead of clustering in one easily assaulted building, giving zombies the advantage of concentrating their forces into one punch instead of duiluting it into severeal and attrition, since you guys just dont hop up after a zombie eats your brain, well, you do, but not as a human. You are the inescapable result of the games rampant trenchcoatery, and kevans mistaken supporting of it through the years. i only hope he has learnt his lesson, and i sincerely hope you learn yours in the weeks to come. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that you say it (and I'm talking about "what" you say, not "how" you said it), this change could really make survivors more mobile. We founded a group that depends on flexibility, and I love river tactics. But you just have no chance convincing the inhabitants of a crowded NT building to move to the other one 2 squares away, because there are zombies outside. And mea culpa, I indeed have acted "trenchcoatish" to support the other groups that stayed or to keep the horde busy a few suburbs away from my "home". Once humans have to move, they might learn. And I fully approve of that. However I do NOT see zombies as "siege engines" in an empty building. They should be encouraged to move on, not be encouraged to stay.-- [ ρsych°Lychεε ] ^☼ T 13:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They are encouraged to move on in teh hunt for food. Sitting in a ruined building is boring. Eating peoples brains is not. Its why zombies move on. This no more promotes zombies to be sedentiary than ransack or ruin did. As for people moving, well, when they dont move, they get eaten. Soon enough, they will notice that those who did move arent in line at the revive point with them, and then, bit by bit, they will learn the value of mobility, or at the very least, avoiding the building the zombies are slaughtering the inhabitants of. No longer should people walk into a building with humans and zombies fighting to the death and say "This looks like a nice place to nap!" --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This indeed good. good for ferals. when some zombies destroyed barricade and came in, if there is metagaming crowd - they will get in because they're in-time with destruction, ferals that log on few hours later however missed out and now actually game mechanics helps them to came in, as restoring cades after breach is harder. i like it. now i'd better go and check that new scent death out more. --~~~~ [talk] 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

h

Nice update, but your percentages are too high. I've managed to get it up from loosely to not even very strongly in a bit less than 30AP. There are only 2 zombies inside, which is just silly. It needs to be scaled, a couple of zombies only does so much, but something like 15 might make it pretty hard to barricade. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How much do you think it takes to get the cades down from that much? --Karek^maps?! 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivors should always have the advantage when it comes to the barricade - dismantle ratio, just not as much as it has been in the past. A survivor could shove a measly zombie aside and prop a chair against the door. If there was 20 zombies, it should be harder, not the same. Too much of a "nerf" to those few survivors who are brave enough to wander into red territory and are attempting to hold a building from a small mob of zombies. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, they way you seem to be saying they should have the advantage is one in which they would never need to deal with zombies being in buildings. When the zombies are outside you still get a massive advantage, you still get a massive advantage in killing and dumping, you still get massive advantages when the zombies are indoors. The only difference now, apparently, is that the numbers for barricading when zombies are inside are closer to the numbers for zombies to decade. That's a situation where they shouldn't have the advantage and them having the advantage was a major part of what made 1 survivor able to stop 20 zombies even if one of them got lucky enough to get inside. And it's not a nerf to survivors in red territories, that's just foolishness, zombies generally don't sleep in buildings in red territories, unless it's only red because zombies just came to town, and this will have absolutely no effect on red territories beyond making Barricade Strafing, something which has been killing the game for many zombie players, less absurdly efficient.--Karek^maps?! 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the rates for building barricades while a zombie is present are at about the same as the hit rates zombies get on barricades, or maybe a bit better. If there's only one zombie present, a single survivor should be able to kill it quickly and with minimal resources (at worst, 4 pistol clips should do it) and re-build 'cades at the full rate. 50 survivor AP spent defending a building looks quite effective when there is just one zombie. Multiple zombies make that much harder, and require multiple survivors to kill them all. So yes, a crowd of zombies inside a building DOES make getting the 'cades back up harder than a lone zombie does.  Swiers 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put something up in Talk:Suggestions so voice my opinion on this properly. (Although it would be spammed if put it into voting, would it not? The old too soon rule). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On a second though, I'll wait till we have some statistics. Like I said, it's easier to push aside 2 zombies than to push aside 20. If it comes to a point where humans need to completely clear every buidling before they barricade, that's just ridiculous. Not everyone is trenchie. Places like malls on the other hand, with more zombies getting in at one time, should be harder to barricade. More guns, more people with AP, more reward for zombie effort to keep the doors open. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You hardly have to remove every zombie, we don't even know if it's cumulative or if 1 zombie inside gives the max reduction yet. We do, however, if you're numbers are at all right, know that it's not that big of a reduction, unless you are comparing it to their near perfect success rate before.--Karek^maps?! 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit early to judge. I tried rebarricading a building earlier today, with 49AP. 3 zombies inside, hit the barricade button once, than proceeded to kill a zombie. Had a lot of trouble getting getting it up from loosely to QSB, yet there are only 2 zombies. I'm at 2AP now. 49AP to kill a zombie and get up to QSB? Yikes. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AHLG, the problem with your whining, and thats exactly what it is, is that lone survivors are quite capable of killing two zombies dead and tossing them out a window, then building the cades and preparing tea and scones. You should have just shot them dead. Its your fault that you couldnt get past them, the little barricader who though he could, instead of the sensible little survivor who threatened the narrator and shot the zombies, tossed them, and rebuilt. This goes a way to rectifying the massive ap imbalance, and, lets face it. the survivors were never going to enjoy anything that did that. What you need to remember is how we must feel having to do that same thing day in and day out with those shitty rates. You will get used to these, as we got used to those. Maybe you will learn to coordiante batter, and spread your battles out over a larger area. Thats how to counter this update. Put as many sets of cades between the population and the zombies as possible. When a breach is too big to contain, fall back. If the zombies fail to hold a building sufficiently, retake it. Revive your dead quickly. Spread out so that if th zombies smash a safehouse, they dont get a huge pile of you, just a handful who are easily revived. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit early to judge. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yiu say that as though it makes all the whining dissapear like magic, when it doesnt. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother trying to argue with someone who never attempts to look at someone else's POV with merit, and who continues to argue the same point to no end. I'm not even going to try and continue. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So by offering a rebuttal i am not looking at your POV with merit. Interesting position there. So bascially you are saying that unless i accept your position as is, and dont try to show you how its silly, when its patently obvious to even thouse with half a brain that its silly, i am somehow not treating your position as though it has merit. Curious concept. FYI: I determined your comment was without merit after i read it, not before, and only after i determined it did not deal with the realities of the game.m If you want to live in your cuckoo land, then who am i to stop you, but stop trying to cram your cuckooist beliefs down everyones throat and expecting everyone to simply let you. People will rebut and argue till the cows come home, grow old, and die of old age, and im no exception. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ach, poo. You're right for the most part. I've been in a pissy mood today. I'll pass judgement with futher testing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) No angry comments? Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that I don't want to be a trenchie. I like barricading things and healing peoples. I'm annoyed by this force of playstyle. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly forced, barricades are still as good as ever except now active zombies inside a building can actually fight against active survivors inside a building. Shooting zombies has never been trenchy. Also, Giddings Mall and the Big Bash just had a good fight over this, about 30-40 zombies broke in, fought over the 'cades for an hour, which, from what I can tell, was the kind of thing this update was meant to cause, more time for Feral zombies to actually get to buildings and get experience instead of them being forced to join groups and strike teams to get decent levels and decent food.--Karek^maps?! 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with mall sieges, there's nothing that I see wrong there. I have to lug around more guns around in dangerous territory than usual, instead of sticks and FAKs. (although it will require more coodination, which should be interesting, seeing as we're historically terrible at organization). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i

As a PKing survivor, I have to say that the zombie buffs are a definite improvement! Thank you Kevan for paying attention to the needs of the zombie community, and thank you for the great game!  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And as a PKer/survivor/zombie (Yes, I have one of each), I find these changes utter crap to the survivor side. And in the middle of a freakin' mall siege, too! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, what the hell!? I realize that zombies feel downtrodden for whatever asinine reason, but this is ridiculous. Right now I have a character in a fire station, with three zombies inside. I've just wasted 15 AP, and I STILL haven't gotten the barricades to LOOSELY. LOOSELY, DAMMIT! So, that means that the zeds have GOT to be blasted away in order for any barricading attempts to be worthwhile. This completely dooms any small survivor groups who can't bring enough AP to the table. Also, if the zombies in a siege have a single scrap of coordination, it's all over. All they need to do is get inside with enough zeds to soak up the initial counterattack and wait for their buddies to log in to find the doors wide open. This is a disaster for survivors, and the only cure I can see is survivors forming megagroups.

Aww, do you want a loli? You got unlucky, deal with it. Zombies still have a pretty much everything against them, only now it's a little bit better for them because when they get barricades down they have a chance of keeping them down. --Karek^maps?! 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like he got unlucky to me. I spent 30AP on the cades and barely for it back to Lightly. I see you complain a lot that zombies are so unfairly stacked against, but when you're effectively invincible you should generally have a handicap. When attacking you yeilds no reward in and of itself, especially with Ankle Grab, you should have a handicap. Also, having the highest accuracy for a weapon they don't have to reload isn't very "against" the zombies. Neither are infections for that matter, or the fact that they're the ones on the offensive, or the fact that they can come back to the world of the living and use all of a survivor's strengths against them, even barricades. Barricades do stack the odds against zombies, sure, but in the end, that's the only weapon they have besides running; and there's already a way to stop them from being made besides tearing them down.--Xshu 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The speed at which survivors can level is a reward gained from attacking zombies, dumping bodies out of buildings to get your insane search rates is a reward gained from attacking zombies, attacking zombies is a reward for attacking zombies. The argument for death should have a downside is a horrible argument simply because zombies can not avoid death zombies can not avoid being attacked, zombies can not hide, zombies can barely even more 10 blocks. Reloading is a reward in and of itself, it guarantees you will always beat the averages and will never actually lose AP(search AP is stored AP, not lost AP). If you think barricades are the only weapons survivors have stop playing now, you're nothing but a hindrance to survivors. Barricades are not a weapon against zombies they are only a weapon that stops zombies from being able to play the game.--Karek^maps?! 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you sure showed all those straw men what's what. When I say "reward", I mean for survivors in general. A survivor who has chosen to level through shooting random zombies on the street instead of doing something useful is frowned upon even if it is a quick way to level because, besides leveling up one more survivor, it's not helping other survivors. Dumping bodies is the reason I said "in and of itself". Sure, a side-effect of killing a zombie indoors is the ability to dump it, but killing a survivor for the sake of killing it will rob the survivor of what could potentially be days of gameplay if they don't play dual nature; killing a zombie for the sake of killing it robs the zombie of 15 AP at most. As for "death should not have a downside", I never said it should. I said they should have a handicap to make up for their invincibility, which they do in the form of the barricades that have been nerfed. I never said that handicap should actually involve the zombie's death. Also, I said zombies having the highest accuracy for a weapon they don't have to reload is an advantage they have, but I never said searching for ammo was lost AP. Still, the fact that they don't have to invest a days worth of AP to do some good damage is a useful part of being a zombie. I know I've run out of ammo plenty of times and wished I had my zombie claws instead of the fire axe. The fact that you tell me I'm a hinderance to survivors also fails to take into account my zombie character, and your claim about barricades is nonsense. They don't stop zombies from being able to play, especially considering I leveled my zombie to 41 before either of my survivors got there, and I did it by feeding almost entirely on idiots that slept outside in safe suburbs. No, barricades stop survivors from being slaughtered by an enemy who cannot be defeated in a direct confrontation. To defeat survivors in a battle you have to kill them all before they can revive each other. To beat zombies in a battle you have to hope they get bored and leave or, if you consider it victory, run away. I accept that this is the way things work in Urban Dead, but it seems unfair to nerf the one thing potentially making those zombies bored. With the way things are working now, the only way to win any fight against a large group of zombies is to not fight them at all.--Xshu 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, everything in your arguments has one fatal flaw, it's ignoring what survivors true purpose is. Zombies true purpose is to kill survivors, survivors true purpose is not to kill zombies, it's to survive, and on a global scale to help everyone else survive. Survivors goal is to make all zombies into survivors. So then I ask, what is the point of killing zombies? What is the point of hiding behind barricades for in fort style defenses and fighting to the last man? The goal of survivors isn't to stop the stupid from dying, it's to bring the dead to life, so yeah, you're a hindrance to survivors and barricades are a hinderance to survivors. You're a hindrance because you're a player that has no idea what he's doing or why he should be doing it and barricades are a hindrance because they keep survivors from using hide and stick tactics making them believe that their purpose is to hold territory, if there purpose was to hold territory then barricades would be their main weapon and zombies getting punished for dying would matter. Every time you try to "beat zombies in a battle" you lose the battle, and the sad part is you don't even know why you lost it from the start.--Karek

maps?! 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a P.S. "Also, I said zombies having the highest accuracy for a weapon they don't have to reload is an advantage they have, but I never said searching for ammo was lost AP." In conceeding that one point of searching not being lost AP you ruin the numbers that make guns averages worse than zombies claws averages, if searching isn't lost AP than the average damage per AP is much higher than what is listed considering that all misses with claws are lost AP.--Karek^maps?! 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The existence of Brain Rot seems to imply that you are incorrect about the survivors' goal. It makes turning all players into survivors impossible, while turning all survivors into zombies is very possible. If it were the survivors' purpose to bring back all dead players, there would be a skill that lets you drag a rotter into a powered Nechrotech building and force it back to life. Even assuming you meant it's survivors' goal to revive only survivors, it's not really up to you what their goal is, it should be up to the survivors themselves. I'll bet any money that the majority of people playing as survivors started playing to fight zombies, not to run from them. After all, I doubt many people want to play a game of tag where they're never "it". Unless Keven makes it outright impossible to hold territory, survivors are going to keep holding territory instead of running—no matter how hard it gets to do so—because that's how they want to play the game. If this goes against what Kevan invisioned when he designed them, then he should either make holding ground impossible and replace barricades altogether with something far less reliable or he should concede to what the survivor majority wants and redesign how they're meant to be played. Also, your repeated attacks on my value as a player are rather petty. Just thought you should know. I know very well what I'm doing, and I generally don't fight to the last man. Even just now, I bailed out of Blackmore because we've clearly lost it. However, bunkering down and holding territory without fighting a lost battle like an idiot can have many uses in your precieved "purpose". If survivors can fight for an NT building, for example, they can bring back those who die to keep the place in addition to those waiting at revive points. Furthermore, your claim that "[I] don't know why [I] lost it from the start" is incorrect. I've always been aware of the fact that survivors are geared towards mobility, and when I was attempting to gather support for LUE's attack on Caiger (a plan which failed for reasons mostly involving a lack participation and the fact that I was unaware LUE uses zombie spies) I was a proponent of bailing out of the mall and using geurilla tactics to drive LUE away faster so we could rebuild. So why argue at all if I know survivors are more useful when played mobile? Because in the end that's not what survivors seem to want to do, and since this is a game, I believe it should be designed in such a way as to give the zombie and survivor players what they want to make it fun, instead of Kevan saying "you're playing it wrong" and shoehorning unwilling survivors into being guerilla fighters. P.S. You're once again completely missing my point. I was never trying to say claws were better than guns as far as damage per AP goes, I was trying to say that having a weapon that doesn't require ammo that's better than any survivor weapon that doesn't require ammo is an advantage that the zombies have. Guns do more damage per AP, plain and simple. Once again: I was never saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that a survivor who has run out of ammo is stuck with the 40% accuracy axe for 3 or the 50% accuracy knife for 2, while a zombie still has a 50/60% chance to hit for 3, or 30/40% chance to hit for 4 and heal itself and infect the opponent. In a situation where the local ammo supply is in ruins or getting to it is impractical at the moment or you've designed you character in such a way that carrying a lot of weapons isn't possible, having claws could be very useful.--Xshu 00:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

However, I can see the logic of the falling from a ruined building thing, and the zeds are welcome to their scent death upgrade.--James Ennis 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my asinine reason for feeling downtrodden is because, at this moment, there are more zombie *hunters* than there are zombies. --Chauntie 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

j

Has anyone notice the zombies seem to go on strike every freakin' year? And when they're on strike, Kevan gives them a little boast? It seems to me they are never happy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivors never have had cause to go on strike; they have only once ever dropped below 48%, afaik. Zombie boosts never seem to work. Anyhow,the first strike was pretty damn legit; even survivor players joined in. The second one was a bit of a piss take and involved small numbers. This one basically never even happened. Personally I wish people would stop saying they were striking when there isn't an organized strike that involves hundreds of players. That's not striking, its quitting.  Swiers 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, they're whining and bitching. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But they're whining and bitching for a good cause, right? ;) -- Mordac the Refuser 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There has only been one strike, all the other ones were one or two people who decided it would be the cool thing to do.--Karek^maps?! 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The most important part of this zombie buff is only implied, not stated explicitly. Clearly, zombies have now grown "Mr. Fantastic" stretchy arms and necks now, too, so that they can stand by the door to passively prevent barricading, but still have no difficulty at all at biting us from across the room. Those clever, clever zombies. User:Little Suzie 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay for bitching about reality in a game about zombies. Balance is more important than realism, otherwise you'd be forced to spend AP to eat and go to the bathroom.--Karek^maps?! 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just to balance the fact that survivors can carry as much as the Thing. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bitching about reality. I just liked the mental image. User:Little Suzie 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As a player that plays all three sides, but is predominately a pro-survivor, I think that this is great! The less green burbs the better to my mind. I'm in Dunell Hills at the moment, one of only 3 red burbs and am having a blast. Kevin will probably have to dick around with the percentages on this a bit to get the balance right, but hooray for zed boosts! The timing is a bit suss with him in the BB2, but maybe this is something that zeds need to win, for the good of UD as a whole. Survivors are going to have to figure out how this works and what the percentages are quick smart. I agree with the statement that this is going to make us need to spread out more and work together a lot more, good things. Am wondering if, with a large enough survivor population in a mall siege, if the percentages are enough that it is going to be more effective to stay with the cade, heal, kill, dump strategy or if this is going to have to change for every single situation? hopefully the latter!! Sanpedro 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the "ruin" and "scent death" updates are great, but I don't like the "zombie-standing-at-the-door" update. I personally think (I know a lot of players will disagree) that zombies, although may have difficult times in finding humans to eat when alone, are not really being put at disadvantages as they have rather high damage:AP ratio and dying isn't really a matter. I have 3 maxed zombies and I got kind of bored with the "walk around / attack barricades then eat" approach but I really can't think of another way of playing. As somebody has mentioned above, I think Kevan should add more fun, but not killing abilities to zombies. The unbalanced zombies:humans ratio can't really be altered simply by making zombies stronger, you gotta put more fun in being a zombie. By the way, the "zombie-standing-at-the-door" update will put an end to all the sieges, which I think are the only significant events in the game. Zombies has already been able to win most of the sieges these days (look at the Mall Tours and the Big Bashes), BB2 is halted just because of the high number of survivors and inefficient leadership. Give 200 more zombies to BB2 and I think Giddings will fall even without the updates...... I just want more fun and diversity when playing zombies! --Mp7 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It would really help if people read through a conversation befor they posted crap. Every single point you made has been rebutted above. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're examples aren't sieges, sieges take time, everything that such a group wins/has won is usually in less than 2 days. Every real siege the game has ever seen has gone to survivors unless a group like LUE or Shacknews joined. As for the damage per AP, no, shotguns have the highest damage per AP, searching doesn't count unless barricades do. As for the 200 zombies, nope, won't happen, bigger hordes have tried. Giddings has enough survivors inside that it's pretty much impossible for zombies to do anything, but who knows, maybe this new update will be what is needed to give zombies a fighting chance against mall barricades finally.--Karek^maps?! 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have read the whole section before posting. Anyway, besides disagreeing with some of the above points, I still think that playing as zombies is a bit monotonous and adding more diversity to zombies will help balancing the game. --Mp7 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

new scent death

Image:Scent-81-49.png. numbers: The yellow one: 36 standing z (creedy gates), red one: 31 reviving bodies (cemetery), orange one at the top: Oops, sorry, i'm out of AP :( p.s. is it server load or what, but connection is quite laggy for me atm. --~~~~ [talk] 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I take a semi useful suggestion to talk:suggestions and the next day kevan makes a crazily similar skill. Damn you Kevan. Unless you stole my idea. In which case Woohoo!--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has happened before. On the other hand, Human Hunter was about finding survivors, not dead bodies and zombies. A new skill that lets you smell survivors (probably just the ones who are outside) would be a GREAT addition to the scent map. It seems the map uses aditive RGB coloration to show zobmie and body numbers, with red being bodies and green being zombies. That leaves blue or survivors...  Swiers 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

k

It's funny to me that now zombies can guard the barricades from inside but survivors can't. Isn't it weird that zombies can guard the barricades from more barricading, but survivors can't guard the barricades from overbarricading? --Roger Thirnell 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the point of this update.--Karek^maps?! 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But you're somehow blind when it comes to who overbarricaded? --Roger Thirnell 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the bonus to pulling down barricades. Killing the player who overcades doesn't stop the problem, neither does it work as a deterrent in a game where death is but a minor inconvenience.--Karek^maps?! 06:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

l

Oh for fucks sake shut up already. That. Is. All. -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:17 24 January 2008 (BST)

Boxy, if you arent going to contribute, then butt out. Your little "Shut up" comments are neither needed nor welcome. Nobody is forcing you to read this, so if you dont like it, why dont you go do something else, like find some good porn and give yourself the handlovin' you so obviously need? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Shut up, dickhead. My statement is that I'm happy to play by the rules set by god. Whining back and forth before we can even know what the implications will be is pathetic. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. for a minute or two you lameoids -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:39 24 January 2008 (BST)

Im not sure what i find more dissapointing. The fact that you lacked the ability to come up with a witty rejoinder, or the extremely small selection of abusive verbiage your vocabulary seems to contain. I expected better from you boxy. You stuck your head into a conversation that doesnt concern you, told everyone to shut up, and then act so righteously indignant when someone flames you for it when you got precisely what you deserved. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the main news page, it doesn't belong to you. If I want to tell you (well, not you specifically, but you and all the other whiners) to shut up, I will. Now, either shut up, or keep telling me not to tell you to shut up... either one is equally pointless >:) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:52 24 January 2008 (BST)

This page isnt yours either. How about you kindly refrain from shitting it up by telling us what we can and cannot discuss, and go back to doing whatever it is you do with yourself when you arent trying to such a big man? Also, for your information, this is the main news TALK page. We can discuss whatever we like about the news here, which is, believe it or not, exactly what we are doing. Some of us, myself included, would very much like to discuss the news without the interference of representatives of the UDwiki thought police, such as yourself. If you dont want to see the discussion here, go elsewhere. Once again, i restate that you should probably do something more productive with your time, like spending some time with ol righty or maybe mr lefty and some smutty images. If you need some assistance, i can provide you with a list of sites that you may find helpful in raising your long neglected weiner. You seem to have left all the stiffness in your neck, instead of ol junior, where it belongs. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually grim is right. If people want to complain, let them complain. Telling people to shut up is only making an ass of yourself. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm making more of an arse of myself than the rest of the idiots that are putting their two cents worth in here? Really? I remind you, we're up to January 23, section L, FFS. From what I've read of this so far, my contribution is more considered than most... Let It Play Out, for a bit -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:35 24 January 2008 (BST)

I didnt said others werent being asses in here, did i ? ;) But that doesnt excuse you to be an ass yourself. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like being an arse every now and then... sue me :p -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:45 24 January 2008 (BST)

You have been more of a whining pussy, to be honest. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Purrrrrr! -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:51 24 January 2008 (BST)

M

Well as per today's Stat's check the Survivor percentage is now 37% and the Zed Percentage is 63%. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the Zed Percentage in the 40's when the last pro-zed barricading mod came out, with the justification that there weren't enough zeds in the game and it was to hard to be a zed so they needed help... Well here we are not even 2 months later and the pendulum has swung the total opposite direction. At this rate, one can expect the survivor count to reach the 20%s by the end of April. Is the whole wiki map going to have to be Red, and every major building ruined before a retraction, or counter balance is put in place? Right now the path is clear that there won't be a single survivor left in 3 months if the game continues unchecked as it is now. Is this the future or Urban Dead?--Happykook 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't <...> pro-zed barricading mod came out, with the justification that there weren't enough zeds in the game <...> You are wrong, this wasn't a justification of it, even more, percentages never were a justification for any game-mechanics changes --~~~~ [talk] 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your are completely dismissing the efforts of the Second Big Bash- which is an organized effort by pretty much every organized zombie player in the game. That sort oif dismisal leads most zombie players to say "well, you had it coming, now just die and suck it up." Given that the first Big Bash drove survivor numbers to under 40%, and didn't have the help of a group as big as the Dead, the Jan 23 update seems significant, but not the only factor by far.
Survivors can and will come back once zombies stop the organized rampage.  Swiers 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, i'm not dismissing the Second Big Bash, they where stopped DEAD at giddings for over a month, thanks to the organized efforts of dozens of survivor groups (total survivors numbering over 1000 players). So they resorted to whining to Kevan how unfair it was that they were getting their butts handed to them, so he made the mod update specifically to aid them in the giddings mall seige (as Kevan was there with bub and participating in it (ironically). And wouldn't you know it, not 2 days later the Mall Fell and Big Bash beat their chests and claimed victory due to their "expert tactics"... They still to this day do not credit that win due to the Mod Update they begged for...--Happykook 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so this isn't whining about being at 40%? Seriously, zombies had been/where/are at 30-40% most of the year, normally it doesn't even get close to 50% without some absurdly coordinated/huge horde rampaging through the city(see shacknews, LUE, the Dead, Big Bash.)--Karek^maps?! 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Happykook, you are connecting timings with motives in a way I doubt you can support. I'm the one who wrote the suggestion that seems to have been implemented (in some version) as barricade blocking, and while I do credit it's implementation with tipping the scales at Giddings (scales that the zombies were already pushing hard at) I have no awareness that anybody from the Bash pushed Kevan to implement it in any way that could be called "begging"- or even in any way beyond voting for the suggestion. The tour was actually set to leave Giddings, and only stayed to test the updates impact in a siege situation. Survivors WON that fight, but the update made for a new battle, one that zombies were already well prepared for (hence the supportable claims of good tactics).
Anyhow, you're making Kevan sound pretty petty; why would the games owner and creator need to satisfy the whims of his one zombie character that way? Yes, Bub was there. Bub was also at Strickling during the '07 mall tour, which went on much longer than Giddings, with no update to favor zombies. Is it maybe possible he was just at Giddings by chance, as he says? From what I saw, he left before the mall even fell.  Swiers 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

January 11

I've noticed that the Christmas clothes are no longer at the malls. Also, there seems to have been a slight change made to the appearance of the Buy Skills page. -- Diano (18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Yep, the skills purchase page uses a new technical method that blocks actions via "question marks" in order to prevent a bug where you could be tricked into buying brain rot by clicking on a tinyurl.  Swiers 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

first week of 2008

No more fir trees found in parks any more. Possible the same is with other christmass decorations --~~~~ [talk] 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)