Suggestion talk:20090610 Mobs, Hordes, and Swarms

Discussion from Developing Suggestions

Unbalanced and not a good idea. Zombies can see any number of survivors (and their profiles directly, without contacts), and this removes a player's ability to discern between 25 zombies (a fairly large threat) and 100 zombies (a massive, immediate threat). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:10, 6 June 2009 (BST)

If we would change it, so if there is 25+ zombies there's lots of zombies, and if it's maybe 50 or 75 it's a horde? What would u think then? By the way, please sign all posts. --Rolfero 19:45, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Nah, this is just overpowering.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 6 June 2009 (BST)

So, the simple answer would be to do the same thing with survivors, right? Problem is you can't since survivors are seen individually.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how this is is strictly overpowering.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

At the very least you need a rough count (similar to EMR rounding), I mean you'd have to be thick not to be able to tell the difference between 25 zombies and 150. --  RoosterDragon  00:04, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the number shown is always off in a random range within plus or minus 20%. And it recalculates for every Player that loads the page. So, 10 zombies would show up as anywhere from 8 to 12. 100 zombies would show up as anywhere from 80 to 120. Fractions rounded, of course.--Zombie Lord 00:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the individual number for 1-24, "a mob" for 25-49 and "a horde" for 50-100... Should the need arise anything over 100 would show as "a large horde" Seems fair and clear and adds a hint of worry when the numbers start stacking up. --Honestmistake 01:09, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... or like a mix between Honestmistake's and Zombie lord's. First, the correct zombie number is calculated. Then it goes off within plus or minus 20%. Then, if this number is 1-24, you see that number, and if 25-49 a mob, and 50-99 a horde, and more than that a large horde. That way you can determine how big threat it is somewhat accurate. Maybe we could lower the 20% to 10% or 15%. Ideas? --Rolfero 08:17, 7 June 2009 (BST)

That might be a bit too much. This game IS pretty simple. All we are really looking for here is a "rough estimate" idea of how many zombies are present, right?--Pesatyel 08:47, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I'll suggest it as quickly as I can. Discussion will be moved when done. --Rolfero 17:38, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, Honestmistake's idea would probably be the easier to code so I'd say go with his. Now you just need to come up with a list of size descriptions and assign them a scale.--Zombie Lord 18:56, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You can't target specific zombies so who cares how many there are? Besides, when you do encounter 100+ zombies it's pretty fucking cool to see that there are a 100+ zombies there. Giving the exact number makes the zombies feel more badass when they win and the survivors actually afraid when they are very outnumbered. You know, like in a zombie apocalypse game... -- #99 ^DCC 19:46, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I like this suggestion, it is logical and it would add to the flavor of the game. I think the description should be scaled based on the number of zombies after 25 or so. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:49, 8 June 2009 (BST)

If anyone have any objections against the following: At 1-24 you see the direct numbers, 25-49 it's called "a mob of zombies", 50-99 it's called "a horde of zombies", and 100+ "a very large horde of zombies" (or just "a large horde of zombies"), please speak now. --Rolfero 17:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)

25-49 a "large group" of zombies, 50-99 "mob", 100+ "horde", 200+ "mega horde." --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Good suggestion. I will take the freedom to change "mega horde" to just "very large horde" --Rolfero 19:46, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If anyone have any objections against the following: At 1-24 you see the direct numbers, 25-49 it's called "a large group of zombies", 50-99 it's called "a mob of zombies", 100-199 "a horde of zombies", and 200+ "a very large horde of zombies", please speak now. --Rolfero 19:46, 9 June 2009 (BST)

"Mob, Horde, Swarm?" I would be against limiting the use of the word horde to groups over 100 but that's just semantics--Honestmistake 08:07, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... maybe 25-49: "large group", 50-99: "mob", 100-199: "horde", 200+: "swarm"? --Rolfero 11:38, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Keep it simple and lose the "Large Group". Mobs and Hordes just sound much cooler :) Oh and for the 100+ groups I think "Throng" sounds at least as good as "Swarm" --Honestmistake 14:08, 10 June 2009 (BST)

So 25-49: Mob, 50-99: Horde, 100+: Swarm? Or Throng? I think swarm sounds cooler. --Rolfero 14:21, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, Swarm does sound more menacing. For what its worth I'd vote for this... its kinda like taking zombie anonymity 1 step further --Honestmistake 17:03, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Count the Zombies

Should have mentioned this in Developing, but thought of it too late. Perhaps the Survivors could have some sort of "Count the Zombies" button. For a certain amount of AP they could get an accurate reading by actually counting. End cost: 1 AP for every 25 Zombies it ends up being. Just something for Kev to consider.--Zombie Lord 20:58, 10 June 2009 (BST)

That's not exactly fair, though. There could be 250 zombies and then with no warning the counter loses 10 AP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:57, 11 June 2009 (BST)