Talk:Main Page

Message Archive Archive1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Remember to always sign your messages,
by adding four tildes (~~~~) in the end of your message.

More zergs than even finis!

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/St._Anastasius%27_Royal_Guard Ioncannon11 21:47, 6 August 2008 (BST)

maybe so...but are they as efficiently organised and obnoxious?--xoxo 12:30, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Grim Answer

Tomorrow at approximately midnight EST 480 (actually I think it end up being ~240 but not sure) "The Grimch sucks ass###" surivors will be appearing all over monroeville. Enjoy. --Lostcauseman 00:57, 19 July 2008 (BST)

Empty promises.  Swiers 18:53, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Stats Page Down?

Doesn't seem to be working now. Any comments or observations? Ioncannon11 05:01, 25 May 2008 (BST)

it's working fine for me. try again.--xoxo 05:03, 25 May 2008 (BST)

It flips out on the hour, every hour. It's just updating, I believe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:04, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Quitting

I am a new player and i think this thing is a challange comon all the zombie games and movies are about a little weak group with 1% of success that what makes it intresting[im also looking for a group im deep in zombie territory level 1 survivor i a unbarricaded building...my name ingame is barakiva]

I think it's about time to quit playing this game. The new blocking skill for the zeds is just too overwhelming. There's no safe place anymore. Heck, you can't stay alive for more than an hour. Zombies just aren't penalized enough for dying. Revives take way too much AP and time when contrasted with a zeds ability to just stand up for 1 AP and no waiting with ankle grab! This game just isn't any fun for me anymore waking up dead all the time and waiting around for revive. Who's with me? (Just for the record, I don't like playing a slobbering, rotting corpse stumbling around moaning "barah" or whatever it is they say.)Medic 812 19:33, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Then don't wait around for a revive, pursue one aggressively.--Karek^maps?! 20:25, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Why do you need other people to quit with you? Just go if you aren't having fun anymore.--Dirk McLarge 21:09, 2 April

I don't necessarily need to have anyone join me. It's really just a question for the reader of the post to consider. If you are as frustrated with the games recent turn of events due to updates as I am, you may want to consider leaving. Think about it. Medic 812 05:00, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, because the game is obviously completely trashed, hence green suburbs are now reappearing on the danger map, most suburbs have barricaded buildings, ruined NTs are spitting out syringes at unprecedented rates and survivor numbers are up to 41%. Seriously, when will people learn that Kevan isn't an idiot and won't just let his game turn to shit overnight? The guy knows what he's doing. --Papa Moloch 05:36, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Meh. If you're dying once an hour, we're probably not going to miss you. Except for the fact that we now need to figure out something else to use as bait. Have you had a look at the stats page recently? Survivors are back up to 41%. Looks like there are plenty of other people out there that are able to find revives and stay alive. Sanpedro 05:39, 3 April 2008 (BST)

There's no safe place? So you're saying me staying in the same building for almost a week now is hallucination? Owwww... --~~~~ [talk] 15:55, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Don't suppose you would be willing to share that secret location would you ;) --Honestmistake 16:40, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Lookit the map, and then consider that survivors are currently making a point of keeping mum when a suburb is safe. Its pretty obvious which burbs might be considered green. Oh, wait, 4 of them already are. Gee, and only a week or so late...  Swiers 18:28, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Meh, suburb isn't a convincing argument. It's pretty biased all the time and it's not possible to avoid this biasness, simply because of design of it as a public my-ego-is-bigger-than-yours resource. EMRP is a bit better if it is updated automatically (i didn't keep a track on that project). Anyway suburb i'm in is marked orange right now --~~~~ [talk] 19:56, 3 April 2008 (BST)

EMRP is outdated though... 300 zombies in Dartside? It's a survivor tea party down there. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:24, 3 April 2008 (BST)

One does not simply quit Urban Dead. I should know. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor} 21:42, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, we're all dead. Unless you live in South Malton. You know what, where is it written that survivors are supposed to win anyway? You may notice that in one part of this sprawling expanse we call the wiki, Kevan's name links to the IMDB page for Day Of The Dead. That should say something to you. If it doesn't....watch more zombie movies...Besides which, if this game was supposed to be a cakewalk for survivors than what would be the fun in playing. Don't criticize Kevan for fixing imbalances in his own game...--AViewAM 00:11, 13 April 2008 (BST)

I agree that zombies have become a tougher egg to crack, but remember that this game can go on forever. Who knows, one day the zombies could be all "WHYZ AREZ all the suburbs green?" After all, UD has had its share of the humans having an upper hand, then zombies have their chance. Dont worry, it'll be back to us in good time. I agree Daranz' comment that one cannot quit Urban Dead. I once thought of quitting due to the game getting boring. I was looking for any similar games that have graphics and more advanced technology. But there was no other game similiar with more advanced technology. So i found myself reading and clicking again, just like the old days. --Surfreak 12:31 Apil 17 2008 (PST)

i seem to remember a time when only ridleybank and a scant few other 'burbs were red, most of the map being green, and we didn't complain half as much as ive been seeing from our human counterparts. --Bullgod 21:34, 18 April 2008 (BST)

There have been quite a few times actually. Whenever we don't have LUE, Shacknews, the Dead wandering around. Even happened when BigBash2 was around because before the interference update all it took to hold a mall was enough bodies.--Karek^maps?! 22:13, 18 April 2008 (BST)

yeah i got lulz the first time i saw people wanting to quit...now i just get a sick feeling in my stomach. you people call yourselves survivors in a zombie holocaust... *shakes head in disappointment*--xoxo 10:42, 19 April 2008 (BST)

every one can stop complaining now. VVV --Bullgod 10:48, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I love it how everyone doubted this day would come, tis unfortunate. I wonder when people will start posting correct danger reports. And wtf is the dead doing? They have 1200 members, surely they can cause mass zombification keeping the percent below 40 with relative ease...--xoxo 11:27, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I think the Dead are effectively a collection of ferals scattered about the city at this point, who just happen to have that group name. A lot of them are probably going to idle out, or are barely active enough not to idle. Watch their numbers over the next 10 days. BTW, survivors are now at 56%.  Swiers 04:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)

And some people thought this was the end... it was just a bump, albeit a large one. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:55, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I soooooooo knew this was going to happen. I made this prediction MONTHS ago at the height of The Dead's reign. And so the cycle begins again... Unfortunately, this is my least favorite part of the cycle. -- Mordac the Refuser 19:58, 19 May 2008 (BST)

You know what made the difference? Look at the revivifying body numbers. I don't think the ratio of revives to standing survivors has EVER been a consistently high as in the past two-three weeks.  Swiers 05:13, 8 May 2008 (BST)

All the Red burbs

Look at the suburb map. This blows man. I'm going to smoke weed.Ioncannon11 03:54, 30 March 2008 (BST)

The scary thing is that this is an improvement.--Scott Timewell 04:12, 30 March 2008 (BST)

It's great for zombies, and for survivors who want to battle hordes, rather than fighting each other or hanging out at the mall >:) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:00 30 March 2008 (BST)

I actually find this to be WAY more fun. I've never before found facing the hordes so challenging before. What with the 'no cades while zombie presence' addition and increased zed enthusiasm I'm having much more fun. Boots 19:40, 31 March 2008 (BST)

Just a hint; I wouldn't totally go by the suburb map. Zombies seem to be attractive to the color green or yellow. ;-)--Zaphord 06:02, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Monroeville

Wow, Monroeville is gay for zombies now that headshots are introduced as permanently killing zombies.....all players have to do is save up on ammo now and go outside and kill a zombie and come back inside and stock up again.....if you have 4 shotguns a couple pistols and lots of ammo you can pwn.....Diary of the Dead just became Diary of the Living......GG Kevan --Krazyxman 23:50, 4 April 2008 (BST)

- Oh yeah ? If you still know any living people (girl or boy, i don't mind) in Monroeville, give my adresses. I'm looking for fresh brain for weeks now. - Bug MacLock 20:06, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Rumor has it that a city in America's State of Pennsylvania has been infected as well... can anyone confirm this? Associated Press - Monroeville, PA Outbreak --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 09:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Arthur T Bone.... I can confirm that Marty, the streets are strangely silent. I don't know how many survivors there are but the situation looks bad! --Honestmistake 09:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Ooc: There's no necrotechs, I'm gonna really be unhappy if I die while I'm gone... PS: the Pkers have already shown up... I spotted ZillyLillyPilly... People only get one life in the new city folks... it will be really uncool if you all go crazy and start pking so soon...) --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are too many survivors, hopefully a few PKers will make this game interesting. If you get Pkd just suck it up and play as a zombie!

It's just how spawning works, move a ways away from where you spawned and you'll find either nobody or zombies. And remember it's about the size of Malton but with 1/4 of the population.--Karek^maps?! 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bummer, my character died... I'm outtie for now... good luck in Monroeville all... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 15:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Monroeville Mapping

Okay, First Suburb I spotted... South Monroeville... add them as you see them... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Central. --Honestmistake 09:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As am I. I found a mall, or rather, I found four one-square malls together in a L pattern. --Amanu Jaku 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also a West Monroeville.--Finis Valorum 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hit a border when I tried to see if there was an East. --Amanu Jaku 09:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Central seems well served by Hospitals, I've seen 4 very close together.--Honestmistake 10:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I started in west and travelled about 30 blocks before i hit central. Also, UDtool kept changing suburb link, and i think that goes off the x,y coords of the blocks themselves. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in South Monroeville, and tried using both Iwitness and the new GPS bookmarklet I had whipped up. Iwitness functions, but gives the wrong co-ordinates. THe GPS bookmarklet works, but the x-coords in the page code were stuff like 353, and the code in the BM only picks up the 53 part, because I assumed all co-ords would be 2 digit numbers (I was making this last night, before Monroeville existed). I could modify the code in both cases, but I think for the bookmarklet, its safe so use it as is; users know what city they are in!
So, does anybody know what the "boundry co-ordinates" of Monroeville are? I need that to get the co-ordinate detection to work properly in Iwitness (actually, for the bookmarklet also).  Swiers 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1-100 on the Y axis, from the looks of it, and about 300-400 on the x axis.--Karek^maps?! 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All italics on the site

Italics on site

I just came to the site to find all of the text in italics, anyone else?--Memoman 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just this site, seems theres something wrong with my browser or fonts.--Memoman 03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me and this is how the site is suppose to look, I dont remember it being in italics. I'm using firefox, maybe I did something that I could easily undo? --Memoman 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just on those links, every website you visit, or is it all the text on the wiki. And no, it shouldn't be in italics.--Karek^maps?! 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just those links, its just about all text on this site, it seems to be a certain font because on some other sites I have italics where there shouldnt be too.--Memoman 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness, it went back to normal on its own.--Memoman 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What's going on with Iwitness?

Does anyone know what's wrong with Iwitness lately? There's nothing there for 2008. -- Mordac the Refuser 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Iwitness has nothing to do with the wiki, it's a project run by Swiers. If you're having problems with it try it's forums.--Karek^maps?! 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We Need Updates!

This game is in desperate need of pro-Zombie updates, as the Survivor-Zombie ratio has hit 65-35 today. There are less than 10,000 zombies in the game now. Also there are more standing Zombie Hunters than standing zombies. Is Kevan going to address this issue anytime soon? I REALLY hope so, because my recent ingame experiences have shown that survivors have it way too easy.-- Mordac the Refuser 01:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. History has shown that all kevan cares about are the statistics, and the discussion on the wiki possibly. The discussion on the wiki is mostly survivor oriented, given that the zombies base themselves off Barhah.com and only a token few such as myself and karek see the wiki as worth our time while the rest think its a survivor oriented drama clusterfuck. The statistics never tell the true story, and kevan has made some epic screwups as a result (I wrote a list, but that would be counterproduictive at this time). Unless the zombie population completely folds, kevan wont do shit. Its his way. Buff humans when they whine, but do nothing for zombies. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*shrugs* I have no idea what's going on in terms of planning, but right now, even the statistics show that Zombies are getting the shaft of this game. I'm not saying we should go on strike, but if someone proposed it, I'd probably join. -- Mordac the Refuser 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, this game hasn't has gotten old, stale and is in need of a revamp, mainly in the zombie department. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The game has been unbalanced towards zombies since he added cades. he doesnt realise that the statistics just show how many are, at that moment, on each side of the line. It doesnt show their motivations, or, more importantly, the amkount of effort they are putting into something. For zombies, they [put a huge amount of collective effort into coordinated strikes to bypass the survivor ap advantage of cades and do some damage. Humans just click a buttion a few times then wander off, without a care to metagame or coordination. Humans die when the zombies go on a rampage not because they are underpowered, but because they are uncoordinated, uninformed loners in the path of a decent number of highly coordinated highly informed zombies. Then, when zombies eat the humans, they whine and he buffs them. Zombies dont whine, Never have. We just point out mechanics fauilutres, get ignored, and eventually go on strike. Id actually prefer a different name for a new strike if it were called: "I QUIT". Everyone just lays down their zombies and goes on with daily life till they forget about UD. that would be funny, watching kevans game crash down as all the metagaming zombies left. No amount of change would fix that up. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I meant has. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i read it as. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the harmaz are organising 'man hunts' now. thats where a volunteer agrees to run and hide in a specified area and teams try to nail him. they are so bored and feel non threatened by us that they are making their own entertainment now. the game as a zombie apocalypse is dieing so to speak. the wiki suggestions for zombah improvements are all voted down because of 'balance' but zombies should be more powerful than harmaz in this game so they CAN take over thats what a zombie apocalypse is, isn't it? i think Kevan saw zombies as the slow shambling things seen in the likes of Dawn Of The Dead, when to give us the edge they ought to be the maniac fast moving horrors of 28 Days Later. maybe let the harmaz have some improved weapons but we should be faster and stronger. another suggestion i heard recently was that it is unrealistic to have fully encumbered harmaz carrying toolboxes, fuel cans, portable gennys and all manner of weapons able to effortlessly clamber over barricades in and out of buildings at will with no loss of speed or energy. (room of a little tweak here perhaps?) something needs to happen to make it more fun to play as the undead or the game it's self will die.

rotty / tommaguzzi --Tommaguzzi 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We have humans in Lockettside that sleep outside hospitals now. It's depressing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not that much better for Harmanz. There are strongholds where people spend more time roleplaying their "fur pile" party than worrying about zeds. The threat has diminished to the point where its become a joke. Freerunning means you never have to leave cover and can always escape if you decide to. Nerfing barricades would help ferals and other casual zombie players but would give the metagaming hordes a free lunch, whats really needed seems increasingly (to me anyway) to be a game restart with real penalties for death on both sides. Without risk the game will remain stale, as a zombie I don't want a free lunch and as a survivor I don't want to feel like the zeds are just an inconvenience! --Honestmistake 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the organized hordes SHOULD get a free lunch. Really, what would the harm be? Survivors recover damn fast from the damage a horde can do once it moves on, and zombies SHOULD be a threat. I remember that games early days, where if you heard a horde was coming, you did you best to get the hell out of the way!  Swiers 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And the news continues to get more depressing, as the ratio is now 66:34. Maybe if we got more zombie players to join the wiki, we could do something. -- Mordac the Refuser 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the main things that need to be changed are the success rates related to barricading. Here's my issue. A few months ago Kevan seemed to lower the success rate for higher level barricade building and by Christ there has been some complaining about that. However, barricades up to VSB still retain pretty much a 100% success rate and as you go higher the success rate does not drop that much. It's only once you are in VHB that you start to drop some serious action points to failed barricading. Meanwhile the success rate for breaking the barricades remains exactly the same. Therefore the lower level barricades are guaranteed to be built, but a maxed-out zombie attacking has only a 25% chance of removing each level. 100% vs 25%. That is a fucking astronomical imbalance in the game. The other day I pissed 15 AP up the wall trying to get loose barricades open. Kevan, with one of his updates, defined loose barricades as a pipe jammed in a door. 15 AP to shake loose a piece of frigging pipe?! Barricade removal should be altered in order to make it so that the higher, harder levels should be as hard to remove as they are now, but as the levels are removed the zombie success rate should go up on order to recognise the lightening of the barricades and also to equate to the ease of building those lower levels of barricading. Another problem related to barricades in the game can be spotted in the current Big Bash situation in Pitneybank. The Bash are organised, so large numbers of zombies attack at once, remove all the barricades, but are then thwarted almost instantaneously by an active coming online and barricading. That's one person vs. ex-number of coordinated zombies. When it's a guy barricading before the doors are open I can accept it and it makes sense, but when zombies are crowding through the doors?! How the ever-loving-fuck does it make sense that with the undead pouring through a door a single guy is going to be able to just stroll past them, close the door and start flinging barricades up with 100% success? That makes no sense whatsoever. Once zombies are inside the barricading success rate should fall significantly and keep falling as more and more zombies get in, necessitating killing the zombies (more AP-intensive) before building the barricades (not AP-intensive at all). The problem is that Kevan and the survivor lobby seem terrified of the power that that would give the big hordes, but guess what: Not every zombie is in the RRF or the Big Bash! And when they are, they should be more dangerous because they are coordinated in a way that their opposition just aren't. Kevan seems to be determined to leave the game fucked and severely disadvantage 10,000+ zombie players just because, ZOMG! Less than 1000 zombies spread across several groups ranging from the tiny to the large, happen to be organised. --Papa Moloch 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly Moloch, there haven't been 10,000 zombies since December.--Karek^maps?! 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, what makes you think ZOMBIES are a necessary part of the game? The game HAS have changed, for better or worse, as there are more harman players that want to play in the game than zarman players. If more people want to play Human, then the game should be based around Humans. There's no stopping it. Besides, DARIS, the PK, DORIS? They are much more interesting than the Big Bash.--ShadowScope 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting theory, Zombie Apocalypse that has no zombies, genius. Why did you even log in today?--Karek^maps?! 23:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This game is called "Urban DEAD" not "Urban Life With a Few Zombies in the Background" -- Mordac the Refuser 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The game always was always heading to be "Urban Life", Mordac and karek. Always have, always will, unless "Grim" stages a military coup. And it is because of Kevan and the humans, and I believe they both desire it that way. I say, if they want to play Urban Life, then they should. The game doesn't need to pander to a playerbase of 30% (nor should it), it should pander to those that mostly and actually enjoy play the game, like the trenchcoaters, the PKers, the average Human. If these people can have fun by themselves, then why in the world must we listen to zeds? I don't like it, I never liked this fate, but you know what, I'm going to accept it.

Tell me, if this is even an 'apoc', tell me why nobody ever dies for real?--ShadowScope 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know about the history of the game, but your reason is just plain idiotic. The game doesn't pander to that player base because it has actively pandered to survivors regardless of what the number of zombies players were for the last 2-3 years so the argument that the majority of players wanted to play surviors is just plain dumb. Players play survivors because it is easier, because zombies are actively discouraged from playing the game, and because the history of the game screwing zombies has made most all the players who want/wanted to play zombies either leave in disgust for greener pastures(like Nexus War) or convert to Pkers/survivors. --Karek^maps?! 01:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... Military coup. Sounds like fun. Grim's revolutionary army is now recruiting. The evil dictator kevan shall be overthrown! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

so shadowscope according to you the zombah are now existing (the undead find the term " to live" offensive)in a fascist state. are they to become a marginalized ethnic minority to be freely discriminated against by all harmaz? i'm disgusted. maybe you'll want to start compelling them to exist in ghetto's before being forcably deported to another game sometime soon. i'm sure if you could you may even be thinking about a final solution. but that would be a little pointless wouldn't it?--Tommaguzzi 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Credit where it's due. Looks like Kevan is taking the situation seriously and has moved damned fast to add what I consider to be some valuable buffs: http://www.urbandead.com/news.html --Papa Moloch 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn well he did. It seems fairly minor for the most part, but I think the blocking ability is going to shift the equilibrium of the Siege of Giddings Mall quite significantly. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my first thought too. How much of an affect the blocking has on barricading percentages remains to be seen, but the possibilities and rewards for coordinated zombie play look very promising. --Papa Moloch 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you... the SA/Soul Hunter coalition has been putting up a big fight in the hills... and when I tried barricade strafing today I encountered a building with two zeds... I spent twenty AP just getting the cades to lightly +1... now i see what you guys are saying about the ratio problem; but right now it's going to be impossible to do anything in a seige, because most survivors are less active... the fight you zeds recieve are from a small fraction of the survivor population at any one moment (certain survivor groups are somewhat of an exception) --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but if anything that reconfirms just what a good balancing update it is. Everything that you've said of survivors is also true of zombie hordes. Not all zombies are timed strikers. Indeed, the timed-strikers in the RRF probably don't account for a quarter of the horde. Whilst the zombies are outside the barricades they are very much at a disadvantage. Before this update the same was true once past the barricades too, but this allows for a reversal of that scenario to give zombies the advantage once inside and so it gives zombies a gaming period in which they are stronger. --Papa Moloch 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The zombies are way overpowered. There's very little a survivor can do to a zombie, even with headshot. Reviving doesn't work if the zombie has human skills, as he/she only comes back WITH GUNS! There's a "Zombie Hunter" section in the skills list. I think we could use a new skill or two in that area, as the zombies are just too powerful as of right now. I don't even waste my time on the zombies because it's pointless. When you kill a zombie, you just waste AP, time, and ammo and all they have to do is spend 1-6AP and they're back with no problem. I just PK. When you kill a pro survivor, they have to wait for a revive. Then, once they ARE revived, they're at half HP and sometimes infected. Meanwhile, when a zombie dies, they just "Stand Up" and are back in the frontlines with just 1 (or 6 in the case of a headshot) AP being spent. I don't see any balance in this. There needs to be a new zombie hunter skill in order to help balance things out a little. Something to damage their AP.

And for the record, I'm not someone saying this because of Giddings. Giddings fell because the survivors all fled the SE corner instead of remaining inside. I'm saying this because I'm annoyed by how powerful zombies are. I mean seriously, when I'm a zombie I don't even care when someone kills me, I just stand up. That's absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at 09:59, 1 February 2008.

Maybe that says something about what the goal of the game is, i.e. not killing zombies.--Karek^maps?! 11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, no one seems to get is... 'yeah... make the cades weaker... but don't tie our hands...' from my experience for every 8-12 active zeds in a seige, you'll get maybe 3 - 4 active survivors on the cades... this is not always the case, but it seems to be the norm... so the ratio is sick... even if you want to keep the ability to keep us from cading, which you want... a building with 70 survivors should be able to put up cades against 15 zeds inside, so the failure percentage is all wrong, it should be adjusted to include survivor counts as well as zombie counts... at least thats what i believe, that way it will reward zombies for coordinating, and not tie coordinated survivors' hands... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't need to be extra adjested. mathematically by the fact that all 70 survivors would make attempts to build cades, the chances of them to go up are more than when 1 survivor does. --~~~~ [talk] 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Karek, are you trying to tell me that we're supposed to be defenseless against zombies? If that is indeed the case, then that's pretty retarded. I mean, you will never win against the zombies, so why do survivors even give a damn about protecting malls from them? According to what you just said the game isn't about killing zombies. SO WHATS THE POINT?? Like I said before I just kill players, so it doesn't bother me too much. It just sucks that theres no logical reason to ever kill a zombie other than for XP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at 20:55, 1 February 2008.

Yeah, but besides that... (Stating the Obvious: Urban Dead is a game in which you exhaust your points and are done.) if you have 70 people in a building, no one in their right mind should expect that even 10 up to 15 of them are active at any one point unless they are all coordinating and are in the same time zones... but you have to keep suspension of disbelief alive for the game to continue to be fun... and if the other momentarily AFK players dont factor into the calculations then all of that is lost... i certainly spend no more than thirty minutes a day in urban dead, and I play a lot... maybe an hour if it's a big siege... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that you aren't using what you have right. Survivors are perfectly fine against zombies, even with this update. Hell, frequently the survivors in Giddings mall barricaded and kicked zombies out and that was in corners with 150-120 people against 50-80 zombies, that shows pretty well that 15 zombies vs 70 survivors is very manageable and that's using a bad defensive strategy. The job of survivors isn't to kill zombies, it's to eliminate zombies/the infection, as such your weapon is not shotguns.--Karek^maps?! 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why are shotguns even in the game? More so if you're imply we revive them, that's just stupid. Then they just stand up WITH GUNS! The only time this works are with zombies that don't have the skills to use guns. Even then it's stupid, because they'll just run into a mob of zombies, get killed, giving more XP to the zombies, and then being right back to groaning or whatever it is that they do.

All I suggest is one or two new Zombie Hunter Skills to give Survivors a better way to combat the zombies. You have A WHOLE SECTION titled "Zombie Hunter Skills" AND ONE SKILL! JUST ONE! That's ignorant. The one skill you have is WORTHLESS ANYWAY! All it does is cost a zombie 5 extra AP, which totals in at 6AP for most zombies. 6AP is nothing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

6 AP is something, 6 AP is an 8th of the AP gained a day total, it's more time zombies can't play the game, Zombie Hunter skills do nothing but keep people from playing the game. And also, the assumption that you'll get shot is absurd, most zombies don't have anything in their inventory.--Karek^maps?! 07:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How would it keep people from playing the game? Are you telling me that giving people MORE SKILLS would stop them from playing the game? If anything, people have been asking for more skills for too long now. If you're implying that all they do is damage AP and stop zombies from platying, well WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO TO A ZOMBIE?? The only thing that can hurt a zombie right now is to damage their AP, and there simply aren't enough ways to damage a zombies AP. You waste time, AP, and ammo killing a zombie, and the only affect it has is a tiny loss of 6AP. All new Zombie Hunter skills would do is help even out the playing field and perhaps add variety to an aging game.. And 6AP really isn't nothing. I've been a zombie, being headshot was nothing to me because I knew I'd just get up. More time they can't play the game? BS. Chances are the zombie already has more than 6AP when you headshot it, so you're not really hurting it. It'll just get up and be back to whatever it was doing. I question how long you've actually played the game as well, because I've seen plenty of occassions where a zombie is revived, then comes back and does damage to the survivors in some way. It's not alays with a gun either, sometimes it's with a crowbar where they attack the barricades or generator. Reviving them is just stupid, and if we're supposed to revive them rather than shoot them, why even give us shotguns and pistols? Whats the point?

The only thing that is absurd is how meanginless it is for someone to ever shoot or revive a zombie. The worst thing you can ever do to them is keep them out of your safehouse or a mall, and hope you literally bore them into leaving you alone. I've fought the zombies and took place in mall sieges. It didn't take me long to realize what a pointless battle it was, and I just started killing people. I find that much more entertaining and find that killing a player actually has an effect on them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

You assume a lot and back up nothing. Reviving is a hassle to zombies, theres a reason the ones with the guns get the guns and it's because Zombies don't like being combat revived, is that so hard to understand? When the ratio swings to 70-30 it's sure as hell not because zombies are being killed. --Karek^maps?! 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviving is NOT a hassle to zombies. Are you unaware that there exists entire groups THAT THRIVE ON COMBAT REVIVES??? These groups and people count on people like you to go and combat revive them, then they return and kick your ass with guns. You're not damaing the zombies, you're damaging the survivors with combat revives. You think zombies haven't learned to adapt to combat revives? I laugh at you then. I'm sure a small percentage hasn't figured it out yet, but any zombie worth anything has adapted, and you're acomplishing nothing with combat revives. You're better off just shooting them and thinking to yourself "I REALLY OWNED THAT ZOMBIE WITH THAT 6AP STAND UP COSTS! HAHA! LOL! PWNT!!!". I'm not making assumptions. I'm stating the facts. Combat reviving DOES NOT WORK! Groups like Gore Corps just love it when you combat revive them. You're the one backing up nothing and making assumptions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Laugh all you wish, the numbers support me, the fact that the Gore Corps were made, if you even know how they were made, support me. It's probably also time you realized the groups are the minority both in the game and of zombies. Most zombies are not in groups.--Karek^maps?! 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am laughing especially since you just told me I didn't back anything up, and then you turn around and continue to make claims like "DA NUMBAS SUPPORT ME!!!!!". I don't care about "numbers" anyway, I care about the simple fact that zombies have adapted to combat revives, and they are simply unstoppable as things are right now. I'm aware of how Gore came to be, and it proves my point about zombies adapting to the combat revives. Funny, apparently I don't back anything up yet you're the one who has addressed very few of my points. I address ALL of yours, you address few of mine. They are not the minority, you have to bear in mind that while most zombies are in groups, they are VERY well coordinated and expertly work together. It's no secret zombies coordinate better than actual players. With that being said, how can you tell me with a straight face that the minority of zombies have not adapted to combat revives? Do you honestly believe that?! If so you have my deepest pity. The majority have adapted, and it becomes apparent to me that you simply don't know as much about the game as you would have me think. I am aware that some zombies don't bother to turn PKer when they're human, rather, they just let a mob kill them. How is that effective? That still doesn't hurt the zombie as a mob will kill them in no time and earn XP for it. You're just wasting your own time and AP reviving them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Combat reviving works because of the simple fact that it's cheaper to do and more expensive to recover from than killing. You'll avoid PKing, GKing and other griefing as long as you don't act like a fucking moron and revive at random. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does no one even bother to read? I just told you it does NOT work and explained why it doesn't. I suppose it is cheaper than killing them but both are equally as useless. I said it before: Zombies can easily recover from Combat Reviving by simply jumping out of a window or letting a mob kill them. As I said before, there are also those that actually thrive on dumb fucks who combat revive. I fail to see how it is more expensive to recover from. It costs 1AP to stand up from being combat revived. they can't possibly spend more than 5AP getting themselves killed (They have half their HP when they stand up, genius), so we're looking at... 6AP. 6 FUCKING AP! THE SAME AS IF YOU HEADSHOT THEM! IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Why is this so hard to understand? Since none of you will fucking read let me break it down for you.

Numerous zombies actually thrive on combat reviving, as most people are discovering. They come back with a means to do damage to the survivors as humans. No one has really properly addressed this point either, save for Karek who merely claimed "DAT DOESNT HAPPEN!" when clearly it does. I saw it happening in both Giddings AND Creedy. It's happened to me in the past when I revived a zombie who had a boner for me. He came back AS A HUMAN AND KICKED ME IN THE BALLS! IT DOES HAPPEN! IT HAPPENS OFTEN! Combat reviving IS RETARDED! Zombies have learned to smash cades, generators, and survivor skulls when they get revived. THEY HAVE FUCKING ADAPTED! WHY ISN'T THAT SINKING IN?!

It does dick anyway because they just get themselves killed in some way or another if they don't decide to remain human. You're only wasting your OWN TIME AND YOUR OWN AP! I'm surprised you haven't figured this out for yourself yet. Why are you people so DENSE? I've never had to repeat myself like this to people before. What do you not understand? Is there something I'm not making clear enough?

Oh, I forgot to mention... I know about the whole "MAKE SURE THEY DUNT HAVE MILITARY SKILLS!!!!" and other crap mentioned in that link, I mentioned it a few posts back. Thats the only thing that really comes close to being effective, but it honeslty doesn't do much either, as they won't have a hard time getting themselves killed again and they'll be right back in there. And honestly, getting rid of a select group of zombies is ineffective anyway. I have done this before, and while I applaud people for trying to come up with ways to deal with zombies, the fact that such strategies have to be deployed proves that we DO need more Zombie Hunter Skills or something to help even the playing field between zombies and survivors. The fact that we're coming up with stuff like "ONLY REVIVE N00B ZOMBIES!" (which is basically what that link is doing, it ignores the advanced and much more dangerous zombies) shows how desperate survivors are for some effective method for combating zombies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

First, VSB tall buildings are quite a rare sight, so killing yourself is going to take a lot of AP because you have to find and get inside a tall building before you can do it. And if you were dumb enough and revived them outside a VSB tall building, they still have to spend at least 4 AP; stand up, enter, jump and stand up. Second, letting the horde eat you wastes an absolute minimum of 9 zombie-AP (stand up, 7 to kill with maxed bite, and then stand up again), while the average (with maxed claws) is somewhere around 17. It doesn't matter who loses the AP, it's that much AP which won't be used on taking down barricades or killing "real" survivors.

Sure, there's zombies who shouldn't be combat revived, but there's always some gun-toting trenchy who'll take care of them. Skipping them costs an extra AP, but combat revives are still a lot cheaper than killing because a single syringe is about as hard to find as a single shell or pistol clip in a powered mall (neither of which is enough to kill a zombie).

Once a building is cleared, we get to the real waster of zombie-AP: barricades. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

^Yes barricades are AP wasters for zombies, I mentioned earlier that the best way to deal with them is (literally) bore them to death by keeping a building caded. It's true that zombie AP will be spent killing the revived zombie, but they're also gaining XP for this. Bear in mind, the only way CPR works is if the zombies are low level, well if they let zombies gnaw on them, they're giving XP to those zombies, making the low levels a little stronger everytime. I never bothered to jump out of a building for the same reason you mentioned, however letting a mob kill you is the usual method, and it too is flawed. I am aware that reviving is better than killing, but being limited to only reviving weak zombies isn't very effective, and reviving the ones (like Gore Corps) who have the capability of killing survivors is obviously a dimwitted plan.

This leaves only barricades as the most effective AP waster for zombies, and to be blunt, thats boring. And not terribly effective itself, as once a single zombie has broken in, he leaves a path for more to follow. Thanks to the new update you're gonna have to kill them before the cades can be really worked worked on as well.

This isn't good enough though. We need a new Zombie Hunter Skill to help damage their AP and actually encourage us to use guns against zombies. After all, guns may as well not even be in the game if the only (current) effective method in eliminating them is syringes. Even syringes aren't terribly effective. It doesn't seem very balanced when a player has to stand in a cemetary and wait for a revive while a zombie can just stand up and be right back to work.

I'm finished on this subject though, as it is likely to be a back and forth affair and I simply don't have the time to waste on a back and forth debate on something I don't even care about. I don't have to worry about revives (Member of a group called CRASH, which has it's own line of revivers) and I never mess with zombies anymore. Waste of time. Let them take over Malton for all I care. They're simply too overpowered to deal with, and I find it much more entertaining to duke it out with players.

So keep using combat revives, and keep telling yourselves that UD is balanced. = )—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Actually, this is pretty much exactly the thing you should take my word on, there are few people who are more qualified to tell you that zombies killing Combat Revivers is a rare occurrence, but, since you obviously don't know enough to know that I would be the one in the know, let's do numbers.

Survivors uses 5-6 AP, finds a syringe I can tell you from both extensive personal experience and multiple resources that syringes find rates are 12.5% in an unpowered building and roughly 18-20% in a powered one. A single revive can be between 10-15 AP(and since Brain Rot is actually pretty rare unless dealing with a Select few groups it's more often 11 AP). Killing a Zombie with shotguns will take between 10-16 AP, with searching not included, with a flak jacket it will take 13, if you include search rates it's 5 AP per cartridge of ammo, 20 AP per fully loaded shotgun, Or, more realistically, it's about 12ish AP to get a loaded shotgun, as it's 1 loaded shotgun every 10 AP, partially loaded being half the finds and fully being the other half.And I actually think 12 might be a little generous to the reality, it's probably closer to 9ish..

Right there alone it already shows that syringes are more efficient as you need 5 fully loaded shotguns to kill a zombie, on average, if the zombie has a FLAK jacket or Body Building you won't even get that, and the 5 fully loaded comes out to about 50-60 AP. That means that you're spending 15-18 AP to revive(including searching up the syringes) a single zombie or 50-60 AP(including searching up the ammo) to kill a single zombie. All the difference to the zombie, as far as you're claiming, is 5 AP so why is it worth you spending 30-40 more AP than you have to? It isn't.

It isn't worth it because the difference to the zombie isn't just 5 AP, the difference to the zombie is a lot more than 5 AP, it's 5 AP when headshot, using the numbers Midianian mentioned above it's more than 5 AP for another zombie to kill a zombie. Significantly more as it's about 20 AP to kill a zombie with Body Building and 14 to kill a zombie without it, for a zombie that is. But, what is it to the zombie that's been revived? Well, it's a wasted day most of the time(when overbarricading actually helps) as not all zombies have Free Running, I'd actually go so far as to say the majority do not as it is a survivor skill and the majority of zombies are so low in levels that they were either killed dedicated survivors or have no survivor skills at all. At the very least it's the AP to stand+The AP to enter a building+The AP to free run to a tall building(usually an NT)+The AP to Jump+The AP to stand again. Bare minimum this is at least 1+1+0+1+1, or 4 AP, so even assuming the building you combat revive them at is a tall building that is VSB or lower you only save them 2 AP, such a situation is so rare that it's reasonable to say that it almost never happens, and/or you're a fool for reviving them at an entry point. Even if they have to move 1 square to find an entry point it adds -2 AP to the whole move, and thus making a minimum of 5-6 AP unless you, the combat reviver, is a complete fool. This means that Combat Reviving will have, at the very least, as much impact as shooting them with a shotgun did.

Now, since you love the Death Cultist argument lets poke holes in that boat while we're at it.

As was noted above, killing someone with shotguns, searching included, takes 50-60 AP. But that's misleading, as it assumes common non-flak, which is actually the case with zombies but not survivors. See, survivors can be expected to almost universally have Flak jackets as they are minimum encumbrance and surprisingly easy to find, that adds another 3 AP onto the average kill rate, and taking the same search rates from before that's about 15 more AP. So, to kill a single survivor, the revived zombie first needs to get 65-75 AP worth of ammo, then they have to go through roughly the same thing that a normal zombie does with the movement AP, except now you have to add on AP for locating the combat reviver, or survivors, I'll not do that and stick with minimums again.

Already our friendly Death Cultist has used up 70-80 AP, how woefully inefficient of them, but worse still since they are a survivor they also weaken the horde as a whole because they just lost 5% on barricades, are not absorbing wasteful gun AP, have spent an absurd amount of AP just so they can kill someone, and, most notably, do not provide the interference effect.

Death Culting doesn't hurt combat revives, unless, you happen to be in a building with less than 3 survivors per Death Cultist, which would be something you did to yourself. I've always said it and now I have shown you part of why I've always said it, Death Culting actively hurts zombie hordes.

If none of that helped make my point then maybe this will. Every single combat revived zombie who becomes helpful survivor can make up for 3-4 that don't, the history of the game ratio and the Feral Cloud effect both show that a large number of zombies in any large zombie group will become useful survivors when revived, enough that I can, with full confidence, tell you that 1:3 would be low. Combat Revives are as much a threat to survivors as zombies were unstoppable before the January 23rd update--Karek^maps?! 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you type 2 massive paragraphs just to tell me reviving is better than shooting? I fucking knew that, if you read anything I said YOU COULD SEE THAT I KNOW THAT! So you just wasted 2 paragraphs. It's part of the reason we need another zombie hunter skill. As of right now the most effective way to combat a zombie is a fucking barricade, and thats sad. The 2nd are syringes, and that is even sadder. Why the hell even put guns in the game if they are 100% useless against the official game enemy THE ZOMBIE? THEY MAY AS WELL TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE GAME! If we had a 2nd zombie hunter skill, we may actually be encouraged to shoot a zombie as opposed to sticking a needle in it. As of right now, guns only serve as a weapon for humans to kill each other with. I find it funny how you don't say much at all until I say I'm done on the subject. Then all of a sudden you throw up some huge paragraph (Half of which is you telling me something I already know) on the subject.

Also, most of the "Death Cultists" ALREADY HAVE GUNS! You're assuming they (for some reason) DO NOT! They may eventually have to spend about 40AP+ gathering ammo, but no more than. 40AP worth of ammo from a mall is more than enough to kill plenty of survivors. A horde of 500 zombies aren't going to lose much considering the revived one is in the mall KILLING THE ENEMY! Some of them destroy generators and weaken barricades as well. Does that not benefit the zombies? You claim they hurt zombies because they're survivors, and thats absurd and retarded. How are they hurting the horde just for being human WHEN THEY GO AROUND SMASHING CADES, GENERATORS, AND KILLING SURVIVORS? You act like this doesn't exist when it DOES!

As for this claim that revived zombies become helpful survivors... I never heard of that. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I never seen or heard of such a thing. So I can't comment on that. However I doubt that it's true because the majority of the survivors in this game are stupid and cannot work together. If you listen to the radio enough, you'll see retarded claims of CRASH being zergers SIMPLY BECAUSE CRASH USES TEAMWORK! This shows how survivors cannot seem to handle the concept of working together, and every dumb survivor does major damage to the whole group in a sieging mall. Now, I don't claim to know anything about the subject of "zombies turning into good survivors", but if the majority of the survivors are retards, is it not a safe assumption that a zombie turned survivor will be just as ignorant? Remember: Dumb survivors hurt everything.

I said before that I was done, as theres no reason for me to even care about the situation, and I am. I only replied this time because you typed up a nice long paragraph, and I didn't wanna leave it unaddressed. That, and the fact I have a real issue with not letting something go... I'm working on that one... =p

Let's reiterate.

You'll avoid PKing, GKing and other griefing as long as you don't act like a fucking moron and revive at random. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like sex: if you don't watch where you're sticking it, you'll get shat on. Check their profile and the Rogues Gallery. If they're from a big zombie group, don't revive. If they're a PKer, don't revive. In other words, use your common sense... if you have it. --Aeon17x 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And try to understand that the weapons didn't just magically pop into the Death Cultist's inventory, they used AP on searching them earlier. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This guy appears to have no point other than general moaning about how survivors are weaker than zambahz (post update?). They're not, end of story. Bloody whingers! --Karloth Vois ^RR 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

With such staggering intelligent arguments being flung around here like shit in a zoo, I'm surprised UD isn't a full zombie game by now. Nice logic there "Karloth vois", I guess your reading skills are less than sub average, seeing as how plenty of points where made by the fellow complaining about the new zombie upgrades, where as the people he was arguing with could do nothing but ignore them, cover their ears and scream "LALALAALALALALAL NOPE NOPE!!! IM RIGHT UR WRONG LOLOL PWNED!!!". Idiots.

-Your father

My dear chap, Omega9's entire argument is based around the premise that killing zombies is ineffectual, given that they can just stand back up. He's absolutely right- it is an inefficient use of AP to kill zombies simply to damage them. Oddly enough, that (combined with barricades) is the very base mechanic of this game and the two sides. Harmanz have the advantage with barricades, zahmbaz have the advantage with straight kills/deaths. He's utterly missed the point that shooting zombies is only purposeful in order to regain the barricade advantage- by shifting them outside.

My point was that whinging about the new updates (which are generally loved in the metagame; even with most pro-survivors) is only going to irritate people. You seem to be after some flames- I can't be arsed. --Karloth Vois ^RR 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't know my entire argument, as I mentioned a large number of things. I made a lot of points, very few of which have ever been addressed, hence why I'm done with the whole argument. I can see that I'm wasting my time, because you're all the typical dumbasses who ignore all valid points and instead go off into their own little fucked up world.

I have plenty more arguments and points to use to back up my position, but when no one seems to read them (much less answer them) why bother? More so, I don't fight zombies anymore so I don't really have the right to be arguing in the first place. And "Your Father", I'm not complaining about the zombie updates if you're referring to me. Apparently you don't read either....

• sigh*

Combat reviving is stupid and pointless. Combat reviving low level zombies wouldn't be helpful, but only detrimental to the survivor cause, since low levels have a higher chance of getting killed repeatedly in Urban Dead, and reviving them would be a waste of action points and revivification syringes. --Fido14 ^PP 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Combat reviving a low level zombie is actually a very SMART move. Its a very AP efficient way of turning a zombie into a corpse, and this a very fast way of clearing them out from inside a building (which is the only time its a "combat revive" and not a "random revive"). Low level zombies pose no threat when alive. It may cost them 10 AP to stand up as a survivor, and another 10 to stand up as a zombie when they die. Finding a tall building they can use for suicide costs some more AP. If they let other zombies kill them, they cost the zombie side even more AP than suicide does. Over all, CRing low level zombies is a win for the survivors. Heck, many low level zeds try to earn XP by finding and using medkits, which means they may be helping survivors!  Swiers 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are unfortunately wrong. --Fido14 ^PP 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting him wont work. Where are your equations? Where are your arguments? in this case sweirs is correct. Reviving a low level zombie helps humans more than zom,bies, especially given that almost all tall buildings are maintained at EHB. There have actually been times in this games history where zombie players flat out advised new zombies to play human and get a few hundred exp before becoming undead. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti

the other day while tagging a factory, in stead of getting the normal message 'you spray #### here.' i got a message 'you improve your work' can anyone fillme in on this? it's not a building where i should gain xp from my taggin skill.

oh, and am i posting on the right page?--Jack13 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you spraypaint over your own graffiti you get message about "improving work". It's always been like this --~~~~ [talk] 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's funy, 'cause i was replacing a tag someone had covered the day before.--Jack13 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you really, really sure that wasn't you? --~~~~ [talk] 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really sure. I only have two tags that i use, and i was covering a wraning from one group to another. --Jack13 14:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Its maybe possible you submitted the graffiti request twice by accident, either your own or a net glitch, and never saw a report for the first time you tagged.  Swiers 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Swiers got it me thinks....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page and Template:Navigation

Moved from the Protection page-- Vista  +1  14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The newest "First time playing" template should be merged into navigation; as it is now - it's wasting space and streching page.

Please, remove it's table from Main page; for easiness i already remade how navigation template should look, here - just copypaste. I've also shuffled the Radio link in Game Information closer to phones link, as asked somewhere --~~~~ [talk] 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually personally I don't consider it an improvement as it messes the clean look of the other boxes. As it's the most trafficked page I'd say it can't hurt to discuss it on the main page' talk page first before we mess around with it.-- Vista  +1  14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What? Maybe there's some different browser issue, but i don't see where/how it messes other boxes. Please, provide a screenshot. As for discussing first, check here --~~~~ [talk] 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The lay-out is the same in FF as in IE, so I don't think it's a browser issue. The complaint seems purely about the fact that the boxes are at the bottom not that there are two extra lines of space because of the First time playing box that stretches the page. My problem is that your edit makes the boxes lose their alignment, it looks less tidy and more cluttered end thus more "UGH". Why not remove the First time playing box entirely in favor for a link in the main text for example?-- Vista  +1  17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1)I don't see any alignment change... 2)Because of reasons why the First Time was put there in the first place! Newbie won't find it there. --~~~~ [talk] 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is one, the boxes all line up with their tops in a nice row under the current version(with administration floating lower then the others), your's doesn't. I have no clue why it is different in that screen you provided but it is.--Karek^maps?! 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So that's current layout that is wrong (browser-dependent displaying), not mine remaking... That proves that it should be changed at least to make it look ok anywhere. If you'll check the code - there's a lot of rowspans made for each cell, although table only has 1 row... Anyway, now that i've seen "top edges aligned" layout - i don't like it and find "center alignment" better --~~~~ [talk] 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually as they are supposed to line up with their tops in a nice row your's is wrong as well. Center alignment is a big change, and one for the worse IMO. Which browser and wiki skin are you using?-- Vista  +1  14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Opera, default skin. I still don't find top-alignment good - ugly bottom lines and Admin's stuff ugly in bottom. --~~~~ [talk] 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Template:Navigation could do with some updates - for details, see the last few sections of its talk page. --Toejam 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Front Page Warning Header

This wiki should have on the front page in clear red letters: "THIS GAME IS NOT FRIENDLY TO NEW PLAYERS, AND LETS HIGH LEVEL PLAYERS TAKE POTSHOTS AT LEVEL ONE PLAYERS SO THEY CAN LAUGH ABOUT IT AND PUSH EACH OTHER INTO BUSHES." - ZachsMind 11:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to rant about this, and no i do not believe such a thing will be put up. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! We dont all kill level one survivors and then push our friends into bushes. I push them into highly dangerous revacation needle piles. :P No, It wont ever be put on the front page. Not all of us do that, but some do so. The best and only thing you can do is move to a new suburb. Or leave the game. doc crook 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably also not the place to respond to trolls, more suited to here--Karek^maps?! 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A zombie bit me in UD the other day. This game definitely sucks. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor.W(M)^∞.} 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not our fault they run out of AP and end up on the streets.. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering an Undeletion request...

Hi! ...If you couldn't tell, I'm entirely new here. If any of you happen to be zombies (The horror, the horror...!), could you kindly refrain from chewing on me for a while? I already had to carve up this one bugger who wouldn't let go of my arm, and now I'm quite out of AP. ...Silliness aside: I'm considering putting in an Undeletion request, but I'm not sure if I'm going to ask for the right page to be undeleted. I searched through the archive of deleted pages (Or at least, ones that were notable enough to warrant 'keep/delete' votes) and I believe I've found the page I was looking for:

Diaries of the Second Siege of Caiger Mall. It was reported in the deletion request to be blank - but the article I'm thinking of used to be linked from the Second Siege of Caiger Mall page. It included quotes, speeches, poetry, and other stirring reports of this unbelievably uplifting effort by survivors to hold Caiger against all odds, and, all in all, I valued it a great deal. If anyone knows which article I'm talking about, could you point me in the right direction by giving me the name, so I can submit a proper Undeletion request over at that section of the Wiki? Even if it might not come to anything, I figure that article had a big enough effect upon me (And others, I'm sure) so as to merit the insignificant effort it takes me to check around and try to find it, to say nothing of getting it back. Thank you in advance, whether you're able to help or not! --Kaoru Nagisa 13:32, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Survivor Stories

...Also, while I'm on the subject of articles that seem to have vanished, I distinctly recall one that had a lot of personal accounts of notable interactions between survivors. I found the new version of this page, but it didn't have this one story that absolutely warmed my heart when I first read it - this story about an individual who enters a building, and decides to spend the night there, despite a zombie already being there. He gives it a long speech, then curls up with a line similar to 'So, if you'll kindly refrain from eating me in my sleep, I'd be very grateful.' As I recall, he made it through the night. Although this certainly doesn't fit with the 'Survivors vs. Zombies', or even the ever-infamous 'Survivors vs. Survivors' motif that Urban Dead espouses, I thought it a very worthwhile story to have.

Especially after having recently had an experience such as this, myself...(My experience, in fact, has led me to trying to track down this one zombie-gal named Sesshamaru. I spent the night in a movie theater with her, and we talked long into the evening. She could've easily killed me, and a friend of mine who'd come to my rescue could've easily killed her, but I convinced my friend and Sessh to get along for the night. Considering she was a brain rotter and a member of the MOB, I'm quite proud of this, and would love a chance to speak with her again. If you spot her, try not to shoot her in the face. I'd hate to see it marred. Stick to side-headshots! ...Please. Anyhow. So, if anyone's got any information about this story, please respond and enlighten me.

Also, is there an area where I could possibly add an anecdote or two about the funny goings-on that occur in Malton? (Besides the 'Noteworthy x'-type pages, which I'd obviously have to be nominated for to get on, and besides the story pages. You gentlemen can pay the same rate the editors do if you'd like me to write for you. Hahaa...only kidding, there, magazines and newspapers that use my work have yet to pay me even one red cent...) Once more, thank you in advance for even sitting down and reading all of this. --Kaoru Nagisa 13:32, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Advertising box is not big enough

I am using firefox with text size increased from "normal" by one. The google ad box on the left does not expand and so it cuts off the advertising text. Since Kevan earns money from clicks you might want to fix this. Bubba 21:16, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Hmm. Never noticed that, but yeah. Unfortunately, Kevan is the only one who can fix that, as far as I know. I'll put something to his talk page. --Brizth ^{M T} 21:23, 22 September 2006 (BST)

There's no way to expand the box without eating into precious space used by the rest of the wiki's articles. The wiki looks attrocious enough at 800x600. If the box were made larger or dynamically resized itself, *shudder* I pity whoever has to have it at that resolution with enlarged text. Believe you me; there are people who have to suffer that — it's just a matter of whether they use the wiki… –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 10:07, 23 September 2006 (BST)

Generator Map?

Would it be possible to have a map of Malton showing suburb and % of lit blocks? From there, you could click on a suburb to bring up a map of it showing lit and unlit buildings. It would be quite easy to maintain, since everyone would just edit in their safehouse's status plus the surrounding blocks and Zeds could do the same with whatever they're sieging. --Heretic144 03:20, 27 March 2007 (BST)

It would be a helluva lot of work, requiring individuals be responsible for each safehouse, and probably horribly out of date. However, I certainly won't stop you from trying!--Karloth Vois ^RR 18:48, 27 March 2007 (BST)

I'm not computer skilled enough to set it up myself. I do have some ideas of how to keep it updated though...you would create an alt every day and have them sweep a suburb, noting genny status, and update the map, let the alt fade out and never attack or anything with it. You would be throwing the hordes a bit of fresh meat, but also collecting valuable information.-Heretic144 00:53, 29 March 2007 (BST)

It would be a TOTAL pain in the ass to set up. The NT Status Map attempts somthing similar, but only for NT buildings. It took a lot of work to set up, and you are talking about maybe 50 times as much information. Its also unlikely that it would get suitable updates; the NT Status Map often has incorrect info.

Your Alt Sweep idea has a few faults; its a lot of work, and it chews up people's IP hits. I haven't heard from a SINGLE person who wanted to join the Necro-Cartographers, an I only need 22 to get all the info I want. You'd need more like 50-80 to get the same level of coverage for every building in the city, plus even better co-ordination than I propose for the NT mappers.

There's ways to do this, but the wiki is not the ideal tool for it. And yeah, even more than is the case with the NT Status Map, the info would be more use to zombies than survivors, so there's no likely reason survivors would want to co-operate in collecting it if zombies could access it. --S.Wiers^ctdp_NTmap^x:oo 03:13, 1 April 2007 (BST)

whooooooooa... the alt idea is ZERGING, folks, c'mon!!!.... --WanYao 04:08, 6 August 2007 (BST)

Meh. Not really any more so than using a zombie who has lurching gait (and ankle grab, ideall) for the same purpose would be. Sure, the zombie isn't a throw-away alt, but the net effect is exactly the same. Well, except the survivor can enter buildings. But then, the zombie WILL get revived. Trust me on that... _Δ^Δ_Δ Swiers  16:14, 6 August 2007 (BST)

you would create an alt every day and have them sweep a suburb, noting genny status, and update the map, let the alt fade out and never attack or anything with it ... in my book that's alt abuse... maybe i'm a minority of one, oh well... i still think it's alt abuse. --WanYao 04:34, 7 August 2007 (BST)

This map already exists for the northwest, located here [1], and it is reguarly updated with generator status (among other things) by the NecroTech Junkies group. You're welcome to organise a group that creates and maintains a similar thing for the other 3 quarters of Malton. --Generator killer 13:11, 28 August 2007 (BST)

Yyak! It's so much not comfortable --~~~~_T^''' 14:41, 28 August 2007 (BST)

50 HP (well, 42) In One Go?

And on a final note, was a skill added to the game that allowed a player to heal someone back to full in one action, without the use of a medipack or a 'You were healed by x' message? I was recently in Fort Creedy. After a trip to the local Revive Point (to try and speak with Sesshamaru, who'd been hanging around there, and who I'd asked to meet me there) I returned to the Fort - infected, and nearly out of AP. I stumbled into the Infirmary with only eight HP remaining, and then used a few AP to state that I was badly wounded and infected, and would deeply appreciate any medical help anyone could provide. I also apologized for how abrupt and demanding I was being, but explained that I simply didn't have the strength (AP, meta-game-wise) to say much more.

Unable to do anything, I left it alone for a while - went on with my day, and all that jazz. When I returned, though, I had a single message reported - no other actions, and I know my browser didn't refresh that page while I was busy. It was a simple "You're welcome." from a player whose profile identified them as reasonably high-level. I was very confused by this, until I looked at my HP, and realized it was full, again - not only that, but I'd been cured of my infection. (I think I might've even had a bonus AP, but if so, I immediately used it to say 'thank you, very much!', and a few other things, to the individual I only now realize probably wasn't there anymore, and couldn't have heard me, even if he was.)

...Suffice to say, I'm still puzzled. Even worse, this happened before I had iWitness, and the data (including the profile data for the fellow who healed me) expired from both my temporary-file cache and my history before I could retrieve it. I have no proof that this happened - only a burning curiousity as to whether I've somehow missed out on a skill that I can't even see on my own skill tree, but one that must exist, considering it was used on me. For the third time, now, thank you in advance for any information or assistance. --‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ Kaoru Nagisa 13:32, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Somehow you missed the messages where you where healed. When healing in powered Hospital/Infirmary with Surgery skill one can restore 15HP with 1 FAK, so it would be at least 3 heals you recieved --~~~~[Talk] 17:15, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I'd like to believe that I somehow missed the message - and if that's the only explanation, then I must have, somehow. All three of them, even - though I can't even imagine having somehow missed at least three consecutive messages. I know about surgery (though didn't know that it worked in infirmaries as well as hospitals), and I still maintain that it wasn't used in this instance. Are you sure there's no other possibility? ...regardless, thank you very much for the info, especially about surgery being usable in infirmaries! --‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ Kaoru Nagisa 22:52, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Yes, i'm sure --~~~~ [Talk] 07:54, 8 September 2007 (BST)

It's also worth noting that simular messages get grouped. you might have missed a single message that stated: X healed you for 15 points ...and again ...and again. that would be easier to miss.-- Vista  +1  18:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Alt Characters

What is the maximum number of alt characters you can have? I have quite a few (10), and I am just wondering. And is it possible for me to request to have several of them deleted? --Vkkhamul 21:52, 30 September 2007 (BST)

One can have as many alt character as you like I suppose, but you must be careful not to move them within close proximity of one another. Also, no, characters can not be deleted. However, if you do not log into a character for a few days, I believe five, the character will be removed from the game until logged back in. As such, the character merely exists as an ID and interacts in no way in-game. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 22:25, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Main Page Layout = Ugh..

Is it just my browser, or are all the information tables and guide pushed to the bottom of the Main Page?! I don't think the newbies would appreciate that.. --Vkkhamul 01:54, 18 October 2007 (BST)

"First time playing" template is the cause. It should be better floating... --~~~~ [talk] 17:58, 18 October 2007 (BST)

What's wrong with it? (Screenshot would help.) I'd suspect it's something to do with your screensize or browser. Looks fine to me on firefox -- boxy • talk • 13:40 13 November 2007 (BST)

In discussion there is screenshot how it looks for me... i'm not sure what was Vkkhamul's issue any more. --~~~~ [talk] 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

what happens if your characters get in close proximity to each other?

Regarding Anti-Zerging Measures

Does anyone know whether my alts would be banned if one of my characters is inactive but the other one isn't? I don't want to limit my freedom of movment due to a loser scientist who dropped his DNA Extractor *sheepish grin*, but I don't want to get my characters banned either. --Vkkhamul 01:56, 18 October 2007 (BST)

I don't believe they will be, once a character idles out it doesn't effect your range of movement, I once woke up an long idled out alt, to resolve a suburb danger map dispute, and found out he was two buildings away from one of my active characters. Neither character was smited (smitten?, smoted?, smoten? does smite even have a past tense?) by the anti zerging measures but I did spend the next 30 AP running in the opposite direction. Just make sure they don't accidentally interact- Vantar 03:19, 18 October 2007 (BST)

Smote.--Karek^maps?! 20:27, 18 October 2007 (BST)

Past participle is smitten. Thank you for answering my question; does anyone else have experience with this? --Vkkhamul^{Talk U D E A D} 17:31, 21 October 2007 (BST)

I highly doubt it. I currently have my two characters on the edge of two adjacent suburbs, one being 2 squares from where the other was just minutes before. I wouldn't worry.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:37, 21 October 2007 (BST)

ain't it "smote" (hehehe, look at my grammar!)--Jack13 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons

Should we remove this - "...surviving the changing seasons..." from the article? The weather in Malton no longer seems variable. --Dan Everyman 03:01, 20 October 2007 (BST)

It never was.--Karek^maps?! 03:28, 20 October 2007 (BST)

OK, I stand corrected on that count. However it still seems likely to confuse newcomers to the wiki and Malton. There's enough to learn about basic survival without having to cope with misleading implications on the main page. --Dan Everyman 12:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Weather changes have frequently been used as a vehicle in describing new updates to the actual game.--Karek^maps?! 15:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I'll pull my head in now. Thanks for clearing that up for me. --Dan Everyman 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Woo-Hoo! Snow! When do we get to make snow angels? You know, as corpses lying about, thrashing around before getting up indicating there was a body there. Incidentally, anyone know how the snow will affect the visibility of dead bodies? A Lost Boy 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see where somebody fall from the building. Although i'm not sure if that's about suicide or breaking of Free Run lane --~~~~ [talk] 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How To Survive A Zombie Attack

Happy Halloween, everyone!!

http://www.commoncraft.com/zombies

Update

I guess it oughta go here, but I updated the news template, so the main page now displays right.--Edward Grengle 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral groups?

As far as I can see, no suburb has them, and I don't even see how you could have one... (except in VERY rare circumstances...)

Yes, you are correct sir. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the BBC are neutral, and all accepting groups can be considered, since they kill both sides, in one way or another--Severuuk 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few neutral groups. I'm not sure how many are still active but I know at least one is. - Vantar 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you could go so far as to say that Red Rum is neutral, they just kill anyone who opposes them/anyone who annoyes them. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Vantar, your safehouse isn't neutral...it seems to basically be there to prevent PKing and Bounty Hunting, not letting zombies in and whatnot.... Standard Zombie 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

QSG and the defunct Peace Corps would be neutral groups.--Karek^maps?! 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing members?

Not really sure where else to put this, but when playing the game I cant seem to see my team mates names in the list names section. The player is in my contacts list and marked black so I shoud be able to spot him striat away, but he doesnt even show up on it! I asked my friend and he said the same about me and we're both definately in the same building and both alive. Whats going on?? - Coleor

Are you sure you both are in the same location? maybe different corners of a mall? --~~~~ [talk] 12:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We're in a police station - Coleor

Map of Suburbs

Ermm, this is possibly the most biased thing on the wiki. It shows a map of the suburbs which is fine. But then also shows how safe they are for survivors. This creates a huge impression on new players that they should play survivor, I request that there be a page that shows a map of the suburbs, with no danger ratings.

A new page for how hospitible it is for survivors; using said map, and another page for how hospitible it is for zombies using this map: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Zombie_Map

--Thekooks 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, death isn't a bad thing for zombies. All you click is "stand up" for a minor AP cost. Survivors have to look for a revive. Also, using the same method of rating the danger level of suburb would be tough. Want to go through every building checking survivor numbers? A good chunk might even be PKers.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the place for this debate, but, the name seems appropriate considering that all danger maps are, from a universal view, survivor tools that happen too help zombies. It's something built for monitoring the spread of the breach and the only way I can even go about justifying that in my mind is if it were something someone like Necrotech or the Extrenal Military were providing but, as with radios, zombies are able too read it.--Karek^maps?! 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That and zombies always like to say "we made that suburb red! BARHAH!"--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just like survivors like to say, "I made Ridleybank green! BOOM HEADSHOT!"--Thekooks 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The words Zed and Zack suck too.--Karek^maps?! 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

deleting acounts

How do you delete your own acounts?--Tony 03:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You simply can't. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanderlise the wiki.--Thekooks 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki accounts can be banned that way, game accounts are permanent. --Toejam 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get Christmas Trees?

I'm relatively new to Malton, I joined about a month ago maybe? Anyway I can't find any articles concerning the christmas trees/lights. Where are they and how do I get them to my safehouse?

This is how it was last year, maybe this time there's some difference...

1. Plastic Christmas Tree - found in Mall Hardware stores.
2. Dead Fir Tree - searching in a park, you need to have an axe in inventory

--~~~~ [talk] 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Apocalypse

Guys,

I've been playing Urban Dead for some time. I think it may be time to shake things up. Here is my proposal. 1) No new Survivor characters may be created. 2) Find chances for all items beging to degrade. 3) Necro-tech still works, just supplies would be limited. 4) This imbalance would eventually lead to fewer and fewer survivors. And to recognise this the last surving 100 Survivors would be enshrined in the UrbanDead Hall of Fame. (and perhaps the 100 Best Zombies by kills?!)

Game would restart at this point. Would allow Kevan to generate a new map (as the infection spreads to other urban centres) and we would all have to start fresh characters (obviously flushing the data from the DB to allow us to use our fave names!). Since the game system has matured this would be an interesting and fresh thing for many. What do you think? Troymk1 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine idea and very original. By doing this, Urban Dead would be on a cycle, meaning players could experience all aspects of the Malton Incident from the early outbreaks right up to the fall of the last survivor. Still, people are going to have a few issues with it, things like: If the outcome is inevitable, would that make the game more predictable and less interesting? Wouldn't winning be less satisfying if you knew your success only lasts until the game starts again? To talk about these sorts of ideas, the wiki has set up a discussion area - it's at Talk:Suggestions#Developing_Suggestions. If you'd like to discuss this idea further, I'd recommend going there. --Toejam 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea, but i am a bit skeptical on this. There are thing i like, such as resources running out. But then realize however, that this is bad for low level survivors. Imagine you just need that one more clip at lvl 1 to kill this zombie and get construction. So you go to the nearest PD with your last say, 10 AP. You do not find a clip in that time, and the zombie tracks you down. Low Level is now a zombie. Then you mention no new survivors can be created. WHAT???? That is the worst thing i have ever heard. This game is too awesome for a newcomer to have to wait till all the survivors are dead to play. I may misunderstand what you are saying, but i take it in this way. The aspect of the Malton Incident witness does go nicely. Finally, you mention putting the last 100 last standing survivors on the Hall of Fame. Here is my Pros and Cons i made for this.

Pros: Might lead to a global conflict as more cities go down. Perhaps even a late war game in which you no longer are in a city but a desert wasteland. Puts some effort into being on the Hall of Fame. Cons: Ruins some newbie's chances of gaining that last skin on the teeth. Do you want to wait for everyone to be dead before you can play?

Surfreak 3/20/08 3:07 pm US Pacific time

Many of those have already been suggested. Run around through the old suggestions, including Reviewed, Undecided, and Rejected. They're all in there somewhere... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair game changes

I think the new game changes (at 23rd January 2008 duh) is so unfair that i don´t even know what to say. In the past it has always been a balanced update like the survivors gets one thing that benefits them and the zombies get an other thing that benefits them. But seriously this is so freaking unbalanced! The zombies can block your barricade attemps and locate you even better now and what can the survivors do? You can fall and break your legs! --FreddeX 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 37 attempts to barricade with 36 failures. I don't mind the changes to Scent Death, but the cade change has to go.--Darkstar117 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you should use one of your other accounts to barricade then, instead of just having him wait around for revives. ;) --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're all doomed! Doomed, I say!!! --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

about friggin time too! As for the falling bit, I just fell out of 7 ruins without taking any damage, I suspect the damage chance is pretty low! --Honestmistake 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you never played as a zombie. The changes will probably be so rare and small in reality that they do nothing other than look good on paper. As for weakening barricades a little bit, nothing under 50% is a real weakening of barricades, not in any significant way, you still probably have more than 3 times the build rate as zombies have to destroy, even with zombies inside.--Karek^maps?! 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i gotta agree with Karek on this, you really have no room to complain about things being unfair till you play as a zombie for a while. this change may start to help rebuild a sense of balance to the game. --Bullgod 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all good. Im bored with the balance. Lets shake it up a bit!--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But don't actualy shake zombies. They tend to leave bits all over the floor if you do that.--Seventythree^Talk 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I always thought they were trying to breakdance. Without breaking anything... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from their limbs.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Scent Death is F@#$%'n AWESOME!!! even as a survivor i've always thougt it was unfair how a sieged building could just recade to EHB after 1 or two zeds get in. and risk of injury for free runing into a ruin? consequences are good. these updates are great! -- Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 15:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The updates are needed; the survivors don't struggle enough against zombies. A single PKer is more of a threat than a group of zombies. The breached building makes way more (apocalyptic) sense, now. Old Way: "Oh, no, it is a zombie. Go close the doors and fix the cades - we'll wait here until you get back, and then we'll all beat on this zombie together." New Way: "ZOMG! I can't get near the windows, they'll pull me through - you go do it!" It makes the hard work of cracking a building more worthwhile for the zeds. This game should be hard; it's a survival game. How can you say you're a survivor if you haven't survived anything? Milty McCrae 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice a lot of winter flavour in these updates? Do you think theyre short term?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably are. There's even some summer flavor effects for the summer. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed that. I suspect they are as permanent as any other game changes.  Swiers 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone found books while searching in NT's?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More than syringes. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Books have always been in NTs.--Karek^maps?! 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats weird. In three months I've found only one! Thats weird. Time to check that box on my settings page methinks.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Books were removed from NTs in Feb 2006. They are back? (hadn't chance to search myself yet) --~~~~ [talk] 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Was going to say Karek was wrong... I have never found a book in an NT in 2 years but that explains it! --Honestmistake 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! All the poor saps are complaining theyre falling out of buildings, and at the same time Kevans reduced the chance of finding syringes. Thats magic!--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cading already can "miss" which I think is BS in itself, but now this just makes it even worse. They should just remove being able to "miss" while cading. Seriously who the hell is gonna drag out a vending machine if they know they don't have room for it? Also whats the deal with the syringes? Did they actually REDUCE the chances of finding one? I wasted 50AP yesterday just trying to find a single syringe, and I didn't find anything. Then I wasted 30 today looking for one. What is going o? Are we gonna have to start wasting 20AP to create one? This is getting insane. It takes 10AP just to revive someone, and now it takes 20 to make a syringe? It's enough to make me consider quitting the damn game to be honest.

-Guest

That's not happening yet, Omega. And I bet you didn't have a genny in the NT building. Or maybe it was just bad luck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's also not understanding what barricades are. It's mostly plastic trees and cardboard boxes. As for syringes, you got unlucky, even with no generator the search rates are a lot better than the manufacture rates, unless it got changed with the update which I kinda doubt.--Karek^maps?! 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't say cardboard boxes, it just says boxes. They could be made out of metal for all you know. And it only lists plastic trees as being used in malls, hardly half of barricades everywhere. --Ms.Panes 01:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly changes my point.--Karek^maps?! 02:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was in Morrish NT, which has a generator. I would believe it's bad luck if I didn't just waste 30 more AP trying to get one. I normally find a syringe within my first 5 searches, 10 searches if my luck is bad. Something isn't right, if Kevan didn't change anything I think something is bugged.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

It's called you had bad luck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you can't honestly expect me to believe that wasting almost 100AP (yes it's now VERY close to being that high) searching only to find nothing but junk is "bad luck". Other people are having the same problem too. I have noticed one thing though... It seems to be Morrish. A friend of mine went into Usher NT and found a syringe on his first search.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

It could be a sign that Kevan is going to introduce a new syringe... pretty sure something similar happened last time they changed. It serves to get rid of a lot of the old stock so everyone is dealing with the same type! Of course Fewer syringes means fewer revives and that can mask the survivor-zombie ration's or even make people get fed up of "Mhrr-ing" and try playing as a zombie! --Honestmistake 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some incorrect draft changes went live for a brief while yesterday. Syringe rates may have been affected, but are now definitely as they were before, across all NecroTech buildings. --Kevan 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so that was just along-with-update-bug. Glad to hear it is fixed. --~~~~ [talk] 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude! I never thought this section would be this popular! Anyway after some complains and some debats with some of my fellow survivors i have accepted the new game changes (kind of). By the way why are there no complain page in the wiki? --FreddeX 07:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is fixed, I found 3 syringes. Thanks Kevan! That was really annoying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega9 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

The last updates are only messing everything up. Don't believe me? Go to the north side of Malton. Sicerely bullshit. Cervecero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cervecero (talk • contribs) at 22:43, 16 February 2008.

Mmkay, i'm there, what's wrong? --~~~~ [talk] 23:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Try the south side.--Karek^maps?! 00:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrible, ain't it? Anyone would think there was some kind of zombie apocalypse going on. Doesn't Kevan realise that his game isn't about the fight to live or die in the face of a zombie horde, but is in fact a camping simulator? Think of the childrenz! :o( --Papa Moloch 07:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, the zombie to survivor ratio has gone to 53 to 47...with the zombies winning. furthermore, it shows no signs of stopping...so, it would seem the update has gone too far.--Fractal12 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has nothing at all to do with the update for why there are more zombies than survivors, or rather why it has increased so fast. It's Something Awful having started a new zombie group that's done a lot of the recent increase making there more zombies than survivors(the dead of Dunell Hills is them) and Extinction has returned, so that right there is nearly 700 zombies. This is also the first time that I'm aware that there have ever been more zombies than survivors, which is actually a good thing considering it was all but impossible before, it's a good sign that balance might exist in the game.--Karek^maps?! 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Game is ending. Look at the map. It's either red or grey. Look at the stats. They are lopsided with zombies in the majority. If this continues, all buildings in Malton will be ruined. There will be no reviving because all the Necrotechs will be ruined. The survivors can't stop the zombies from breaking in and trashing the place anymore. I guess you'll have to play as a zombie killing other zombies because you are not going to find a revive or a living survivor if this goes on much longer.Medic 812 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that the map is just zombie propaganda crap? I for one can say that a lot of those suburbs are not very dangerous. Heck, I'm in a "dangerous" suburb right now and it has two NTs lit and I haven't seen a zombie inside a building in days. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Server down

Sorry - the Urban Dead server is currently lurching a bit, either through temporary maintenance or miscellaneous server problems. Normal service should be resumed soon.

If the server's down for an extended length of time, there should be something about it on the wiki by now.

---

It's been like that for most of tonight's Giddings siege, and the constant reloading made me run out of IP hits. =/ What's happening? --Aeon17x 02:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the battle at Giddings it seems, and not anywhere else. I can play other characters without being hindered, but I have to try multiple times with my zombie at Giddings.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont think it was just there, a few FU members and i were attacking Joachim Mall today and were noticing the same thing, one of them even had a bit of trouble logging in. --Bullgod 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It was global, one of the database tables became slightly corrupted overnight. I've fixed it this morning. --Kevan 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think zombies should be able to use weapons and guns should do more damage 11:17, 05 February 2008 (UTC)

Official UD wiki forum?

Maybe it's just a glitch, but what happened to the link to the UD wiki forum (http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.com/index.php)?

It's pretty much the only forum I'm regularly a part of, and while I know it's not very active, I've kind of become a fan of the dear thing.

Also, I like to get drunk and write nonsensical fiction about my characters on there. Marcus Bell 05:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Marcus Bell

i think it was taken off the front page because so few people use it, its still on the list of Unofficial_UD_Forums. --Bullgod 05:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

read here --~~~~ [talk] 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update Retraction

Well you've got to hand it to Kevan Almighty - his new zed update is making a KILLING on the streets :-/ Seriously though, survivors are without a chance now... --MaxFloyd 20:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is time to either retract the last Zombie Barricade Block Update, or else come up with a few pro-survivor updates... As of today the percentage count is Standing Survivors : 10439 (35%) vs Standing Zombies : 18883 (65%) in regards to suburbs there are 7 in the grey, and 56 in the red!!! Almost 2/3 of the map is totaled and in ruins, with little to no chance of retaking the area's due to the new Zed Barricade Block. At this rate 100% of the map is going to be red and in ruins within the next 2 months... I understand that the barricade update seemed to be a good idea at the time to help the zeds, but it is obviously to much for one side as the last month has shown... I for one would hate to see Malton fall to 100% zombie domination before Kevan realizes the mistake he made, and loose many players in the process. I for one am probably one of the few who donated cash to Kevan for his work on the game, and i hate to see it go to hell all because of one stupid update.--Happykook 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the update and not that massively huge zombies groups currently wandering around or the abysmal rate survivors choose to revive at.--Karek^maps?! 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's got to be something. The fact of the matter is that survivors hate reviving because of the ungodly low XP-to-AP ratio, which was introduced as a countermeasure to combat reviving. Combat reviving has by and large (note the BY AND LARGE, rather than the completely) been stamped out due to aggressive campaigns against it by revive-oriented groups and zombie groups, so that update can either be retracted or at least scaled back (5 AP to 10 XP sounds like a fair balance), which would encourage survivors to revive- as it is, following standard anti-Brain Rot procedures, a survivor with full AP can only revive four others- and he likely won't make it back inside himself.

So there's that. In addition, manufacturing syringes costs even more insane amounts of AP- the current amount of AP required to revive four people is THREE DAYS' WORTH, which is why people hate taking the time to revive- it's easier and faster to gain XP by shooting or hacking at the zombies. My arguments against the barricade update have already been shown on the Suburb talk, so I won't repeat them here. But as it stands the game's balance has suddenly been knocked in drastic manner in the wrong direction, and it doesn't seem to be improving. Something must be done.

And I'm sick of the argument that it's unrealistic with the survivors having the upper hand. Yes, it is, I know that. It's as about as unrealistic as the entire zombie genre. Can we please stop using that argument and focus on the game mechanics?--Boris 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "its unFUN when survivors ALWAYS have the upper hand." The vast majority of game history has seen survivors at 55% - 65%. Don't have a shit fit when the zombies occasionally hit the same level. And your revive arguments are codswalop. I play 2 revivers, and they can and do revive 4 people a day (though I agree, 3 is safer, and leaves time to beef up cades). When they run out of syringes, they stock up by searching, which averages about 5 AP per syringe in a powered building- WAY less than the 20 needed to manufacture. After less than a week, I have 20 syringes, and am good to go for another week.
Maybe the XP earn rate for revives is a bit low, but you run out of any need for XP rather fast in this game. If survivors are dumb enough to keep grinding for XP after they hit level 41 (or even just 15 or so, that's all you need for a really effective character) rather than shifting focus to keeping the survivor population up (or other RP goals) - well, let them eat brains. You can still earn XP as a zombie, eating zombies, and if XP is all that matters to yah, so be it!  Swiers 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the xp thing(maybe 3-5 xp additional) but, it's not really that bad of a rate as of current, it's definitely better than that of a zombie when maxed and is only poor when compared to healing or or survivor gun skills which give the two best xp rates in the game, so it may be more of a case of those needing reducing.--Karek^maps?! 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, survivors actually need a decently fast XP source, because they can't earn XP when they get killed and are waiting for revives. Now that zombies don;t loose XP, they actually earn it at a decent, steady rate; survivors are more intermittent (though faster over all if they never die- hence the name "survivor"). Healing certainly should not be nerfed- its the only meaningful XP source available for some starting characters. If anything, healing XP should be buffed so you earn as much as you heal, removing the disincentive from First Aid and Surgery for noobs. Survivors also arguably need more skills than zombies; A level 8 zombie is pretty much fully capable, while a level 8 survivor is at best fully capable in one or two areas of the survivor game.  Swiers 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just dumb swiers. They can't get revives because they don't revive, that's the only reason revives are at all hard to come across. 16,000 survivors, 1700 reviving bodies at most any given time. At least zombies have an excuse as to why there are only 5000 dead bodies at any given time(barricades, hiding, etc.), there's no excuse for why revives are that low other than everyone bitches about how hard it is to get a revive and no one revives. As is it's not at all hard for a survivor to survive and it's absurdly easy to gain xp as a survivor. Oh and the skills thing, that's absurd. A level 8 survivor could easily be maxed efficiency 3 gun skills, 2 NT skills, 2 heal skills, and free running. --Karek^maps?! 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek, i already said in IRC and repeat here: it's not that no one revives. Revivers are working and working hard, but the biggest problem is that stupid casual mrh-cows are sitting on their asses in te red suburbs, where the nearest not ruined building is 15 blocks away and think some sort of guardian angel will fly to revive them. They don't think about how the guy will make it to there at all... Just walk through southern suburbs with scent death - you'll easily find many of such mrh-groups. --~~~~ [talk] 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame the non-metagaming community for the metagaming communities faults. Revive points are a big reason for those mrh-cows sleeping in the red suburbs abandoned, the lack of people going to the red suburbs is another big part of it but, ignoring all of that it doesn't change the fact that 1700 is the revive rate even at times of 60-70% survivors and most everything green or yellow. Survivors don't revive, it's not a lack of zombies near revivers.--Karek^maps?! 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke- DIRT:NAP actually provides an (semi) effective answer to that situation. With DIRTNAP, the revivers don;t need anywhere to take shelter, because they plan on dying and being revived every day. In effect they bring shelter with them in the form of a crapton of syringes. I;ve done it, and it works. The problem I found is that the people you revive don;t move to safer areas, even if you tell them to. So what you need is really bit DIRTNAP team (10 or so would do) hitting those burbs and reviving 30-50 people a day, enough that they can fix the area up themselves, and don't HAVE to move somewhere safer. If you organize the group, I'll join in and offer my advice / experience in using the tactic. My MFU member currently has 15 syringes, and is re-stocking already.  Swiers 06:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seb, i do know what dirtnap is, not a question. organise a group? nope, sorry, i don't do organise-a-group any more. I would join a few dirt-naps myself, though, if someone else to organise them --~~~~ [talk] 08:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Completly agree with Swiers, game is actually fun now. The survivors in a zombie game are actually you know...dying!The update hasnt even made as much of a difference as the horders of something awful idiots who joined when the game actually became playable for zombies.once SA go back to chanting thier memes, well see that the game is actually about level, both zombies and survives have the ability to attack/hold suburbs, something zombies where previously unable to do, they move survivors around but where completely unable to leave a suburb and have any lasting effect.--Rioting pacifist 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A motion for featured articles

Do it. We could put the wiki's best articles on parade. i.e. Amusing Locations in Malton (cough). It could even just be some annual thing where people vote on the best article, like the Malton Murder awards or something. I'm just getting the ball rolling here, and, admittedly, I haven't thought this through. At all.--Nallan (Talk) 08:59, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Wouldn't this just result in us frequently rotating the same articles because few things meet the quality levels required to start voting(or want them displayed on main)?--Karek^maps?! 09:07, 6 April 2008 (BST)

No i think this would add vastly to the culture of the wiki and thus result in a better wiki for one and all, y'all. Suitable articles could be Amusing Locations in Malton, the Great Fire of 1912, Fooks Alley, Channel 4 News Team and User:Karek.--xoxo 11:29, 13 April 2008 (BST)

If we don't want to rotate the same articles over and over, then just have the time span between article changes longer. A long enough time, and you'll never see the same two articles. ;) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:17, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I don't like the idea. Meh. --~~~~ [talk] 12:40, 13 April 2008 (BST)

I think it's an excellent idea. We could use something that highlights historic events or something to that extent. IMO its a good idea, and will make the Wiki seem more personal in a sense. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 01:31, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Any other views on this? How can we make the suggestion slightly more official than a talk page discussion?--Nallan (Talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (BST)

trouble with watchlist

for some reason i can use my watchlist, if flashes up for a nanosecond then the page go's blank white. any one else having this problem? it pesters me... --Bullgod 23:59, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Same here --Cman yall 00:06, 29 April 2008 (BST)

bleah, well it seems to be working again. :P --Bullgod 02:40, 29 April 2008 (BST)

So, About that Barricade Buff...

With zombie numbers now fucked and dipping below 10000 even with the Dead still numbering 1000+, meaning that zombie numbers have once again gone through the floor like they did in January, any chance that Kevan will actually start reversing the copious survivor search rate buffs and start reimplementing the nerfed-to-oblivion barricade blocking again? I've just seen someone barricade past ten zombies from open to HB in less than forty-five seconds. --The Hierophant 03:31, 14 May 2008 (BST)

I'm 90% sure that he nerfed barricade building a bit, but that's just speculation. I usually never fail VSB or less, but am finding myself have a fail+ per barricade strafe. But yeah, I'm guessing he will probably tweak it.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:36, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Meh, i wish he'd tweak it so it stayed around 60% zombies...not 60% survivors.--xoxo 08:48, 14 May 2008 (BST)

It's been nerfed for a long time, it probably won't be brought back to the point where it was actually addressing the balance and we'll probably here the zombies are overpowered arguments again next time zombies have a chance at competing. Since when does the actual game balance have to do with what Kevan does? Zombies competing? No, can't have that unless there's a 300-1000+ member zombie group, that would mean survivors actually have to die once in a while.--Karek^maps?! 03:01, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Agreed. Kevan lost the plot big-time over The Dead. The great irony is that in trying to prevent them from 'ruining the game' he's all but done so himself with his ludicrously OTT response to them and now that they're drifting away and, according to what I've read, creating survivor characters, he appears to be doing nothing to correct the balance. Basically he's fucked over every zombie in the game as a way of resisting a single group. I'd call that a win for The Dead, myself. Take the remaining Dead away and we have standing zombie numbers of 8917. --The Hierophant 19:42, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Cade build rates, search rates, and other "hidden variables" seem to have returned to normal historic values already. Likely this was automatically triggered as survivor populations rose. I also suspect the "reaction to the Dead" was automatically triggered by falling survivor populations, and expect such a "safety net" was in place well before the Dead even existed. Give Kevan SOME credit, eh?  Swiers 03:13, 16 May 2008 (BST)

I did give him credit in an earlier section on this page, but will now freely admit that I was wrong to do so and in future I'll give him credit when it takes something less than massive outcry or zombies being outnumbered by zombie hunters to actually react to a situation in which the game has become utterly imbalanced toward survivors. Barricade blocking was introduced because there was almost no chance for zombies to make any kind of sustained breakthrough in the game. Take a look at the stats and the danger map and tell me just how well the game is working now. Stroll through the suburbs in which, yet again, people can sleep in the streets and tell me that the game is working at all. The revive rates are notably high and I've just stocked up two characters to maximum load in single AP cycles, which is exactly what has happened for a few months now. When the game, courtesy of The Dead, not barricade blocking, became unbalanced in favour of zombies his reaction was damned near instantaneous (and rightly so). What I want is for the same to be extended the other way. --The Hierophant 00:38, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Dont bet on any changes any time soon. Historically its taken him as much as six months to figure out somethings a bit suss with game balance when humans are doing well and zombies are being nailed to the wall. Guess what kevan, in case you hadnt noticed, zombies are playing too, and you have been steadily fucking them over for almost three years. Humanjs play stupid, which is why they get so badly hammered when any new update comes in. Let them suffer for a while and figure out how to deal with it themselves so they get smarter, instead of instantly punishing zombie players for being intelligent. You will NEVER have anything remotely balanced until you force survivors to smarten up through some balance change that you then leave alone instead of immediately nerfing because the stupid humans forget they cant sleep safely on the streets anymore. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:05, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I believe it took survivor reaching a low of almost 35% for substantial changes to occur. I agree though; if / when the same happens for zombies, it would be nice to see a similar response. And FWIW, survivors did get marginally smarter. For evidence, look at the number of reviving bodies; it is higher now than is has ever been in the past year, even at times of higher survivor population numbers. Revives are the ONE thing that increase survivors numbers, and they clearly know that now, and do more of them.  Swiers 01:10, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Munroeville fethed the stats for the time period when the zombies were allegedly doing well, so we really have no idea how much the malton humans fell in that time. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:55, 18 May 2008 (BST)

It pisses me off that Kevan acts so harshly at all. And suburbs that people can sleep in the street are the most annoying thing - partly due to the massive increase in radio spam and PKing. Although i disagree that it was the dead that caused the massive spike in zombies. The cade update made a fair difference, until it was totally nerfed anyway.--xoxo 02:01, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I would say that a lot of the above is correct. The barricade change did make a difference and at first it was a dramatic one. Two things had an effect though: The first is that Kevan altered the percentages, which is fair enough because at first it appeared that one zombie could block with immense success. The second is that survivors adapted and did so well. So, survivors get a blow, they respond and so does Kevan. Then the Dead came along and changed the rules entirely. They massacred huge numbers of the population and ruined numerous suburbs. However, Kevan reacted again and crippled barricade blocking almost entirely whilst also improving search rates, especially in ruined NT buildings. Also, once again survivors smartened up and reacted. They did enough to turn the game around entirely and create a situation in which, once again, survivors have a truly enormous advantage whilst zombies are almost entirely disenfranchised. So, what's the factor missing here? Kevan. Search rates are still hugely buffed and barricade blocking is still essentially non-existent. If he's reacted to this situation at all it has been minimal.

I've tried being the positive one who says 'Don't worry! Kevan will sort it out', but I don't see a thing from him. The barricade-blocking was introduced because there was such massive discontent on the zombie side that a strike or an exodus had become a very real possibility. It appears that only these two possibilities will ever actually get his attention and that is sad, because this game has once again become a camping simulator with occasion death attached. --The Hierophant 20:14, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Have you tried building barricades in the presence of zombies recently? I have. Even ONE zombie will occasionally block you (contrary to popular belief), two stop you quite often, and with three or more its largely pointless if you are working solo. Seems about right to me.  Swiers 20:37, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Last time I tried was about a week ago and I took a building with six zombies and one other breather inside from open to VHB inside 23 AP. When did you last chance your arm against the 'cades? I hope you're right and he has already intervened, I really do, but my current experience on the zombie side (ten zeds, one guy takes it from open to HB in less than a minute) suggests otherwise, or at least that intervention was minimal (the one guy was the only active at the time, before you ask). --The Hierophant 22:50, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Within the last few days, maybe 4 days ago tops. It is possible I was just on the unlucky end of the curve.  Swiers 22:57, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Server Reset

When does server reset happen? Is it then that your IP hits get reset? Also, when does AP recharge - I mean I know it's every half hour, but at what points of the clock (eg. on every hour and half hour?). Is this the same for everyone? Is there a page on the wiki with this info on it? Thanks.--Nallan (Talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (BST)

The server resets at 00.00 GMT give or take a couple of minutes depending on load. I'm not sure about AP to be honest, I think it's individual to you and possibly half an hour after you use your first AP of that particular day. Say you use one at 2.12pm, then it would recharge at every .42 and .12 of the hour until full. I may be wrong though on that one. -- Cheese 00:08, 22 May 2008 (BST)

OK thanks Krazy. Anyone sure on those last couple of points?--Nallan (Talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Server reset (for IP hits) is 00:00 GMT / BST. I always seem to get a fresh AP on the X:00 and X:30, but I've heard others say it's every half hour after the time of your character creation. It may be I just usually wait long enough for that to pass when waiting for X:00 or X:30. I know for certain that it is NOT as above; you can use all your AP and get a fresh one 5 seconds later if you time it right! I know because it has happened to me by dumb luck. The stats page IS updated every X:00 and X:30, which is why you tend to get (usually brief) periods of server lag at those times.  Swiers 01:12, 22 May 2008 (BST)

My ap is usually either on or very close to the half hour/hour. --xoxo 08:31, 22 May 2008 (BST)

My AP is usually on or close to 12:00BST--~~-_-~~ 20:21, 2 June 2008 (BST)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY URBAN DEAD!!!

Thanks for making this all possible, Kevan.--Nallan (Talk) 00:57, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Those goddamn helicopters better land this time. And bring us cakes. --Aeon17x 01:56, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Yeah, thanks Kevan. Back in the days before Urban Dead I used to socialise and and stuff, but I have been liberated from the tyranny of real-life friends in favour of online zombies and serial killers. Barhah! --Papa Moloch 02:19, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Happy birthday Malton. I made you something again this year. Its not that I don't love you, its just you are so damn hard to shop for....  Swiers 08:56, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Swiers stole my presents.... <.< --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 16:56, 3 July 2008 (BST)

links in urban dead character page

i was wondering if anyone new if you could add or if you can how to add links in your description for your character i want to add a description something like "a guy sitting in a corner playing this tune on his bass" where this song would link to a 10 or 20 second tune i would record from my real bass and i would change probably once or twice every 2 weeks

--Shade0095252 20:51, 1 August 2008 (BST)

No, you can not, not that I know of. User displayed input is generally "sanitized" of HTML code characters and such, because otherwise you get people sticking in code that messes up the page rendering, or potentially acts as spyware, etc.
The simple way to do this (as an actual link) would be to make your "real name" link to the page you want. Else you can just put in the actual url and let people do a copy & paste. A lot of people use www.tinyurl.com for that purpose, due to the character limitations.  Swiers 04:07, 2 August 2008 (BST)

thanks for the help i see what you mean and ill probably make it the web page

--Shade0095252 04:52, 2 August 2008 (BST)

SPELING!

"Map with More Infortmation". Information! Ahh! It's been there for weeks!

XPav 23:40, 26 September 2008 (BST)

....it's spelled fine if you're talking about down near the bottom panel on the Main Page, it would also appear there hasn't been an edit to the page since september 5 so i don't know what you're on about...--xoxo 01:51, 27 September 2008 (BST)

He is talking about the navigation template. And it was fixed by AHLG earlier today, so you wouldn't see the fact that it was spelt incorrectly. - User:Whitehouse 01:55, 27 September 2008 (BST)

Ah it's templated in, i see, i see.--xoxo 03:27, 27 September 2008 (BST)

Duh J3D, duh...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:50, 28 September 2008 (BST)

:'( --xoxo 00:47, 29 September 2008 (BST)

THE WIKI'S BACK

	It was tough, but...
	...this user survived the Great Wiki Drought of 2/10/08

Holy shit I almost died. 7 hours. Is that a record?--Nallan (Talk) 10:34, 2 October 2008 (BST)

I was this close to suicide. We threw away our precious page histories for the promise of a reliable wiki and this is what we get? Personally i blame the sysops...--xoxo 10:35, 2 October 2008 (BST)

I propose a witch hunt - with pitchforks and torches and the like.--Nallan (Talk) 10:38, 2 October 2008 (BST)

I thought something was wrong when I opened up recent changes, and could still see my last edit.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:15, 2 October 2008 (BST)

(diff) (hist) . . ! Factory 35,41‎; 09:19 . . (+26) . . Mousey (Talk | contribs | block)
(diff) (hist) . . ! User:J3D/ciggy‎; 02:14 . . (-61) . . J3D (Talk | contribs | block)

According to this, the last edit was by J3D.... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:31, 2 October 2008 (BST)

....Jed brokeded the wiki!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:11, 2 October 2008 (BST)

Now now people, let's not jump to hasty conclusions *looks edgy*, it could have been any one of us...or the sysops! Yeah it was those guys! Let's go throw bricks through their windows, i know where they live!!--xoxo 00:10, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Nah. I still like the idea of raping Grim's mum with a strap on, because you know, the name Suicidal Angel automatically makes me a chick and stuff. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:46, 3 October 2008 (BST)

"Wiki's back!" "Uh, I sort of noticed already." --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 01:33, 3 October 2008 (BST)

What happened to the wiki? o.O Met fan 17:16, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Twas down for 7 hours, some say it was the ALiM crowd creating a spectacle for ALiM's first birthday, other's say it was the sysops, burn them! Burn them all! MWAHAHAHA *evil semi-insane cackle* --xoxo 00:14, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Twas the n00dles my friend, twas the n00dles. Met fan 01:48, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Requesting Borehamwood high score

I would like to see where I am compared to the other players in Borehamwood so I am asking for someone to make a page so that players can add their level along with their signature. EDIT: Just made one Borehamwood Scoreboard. --Arcology 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. PS I put a slash through your old post.--Zaphord 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean bloodstains

Umm... How long is it in-game? Description says "The floor is flecked with dried blood" and there's a "Clean Bloodstains" button --~~~~ [talk] 19:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)