Category talk:Historical Groups

Obtaining Historical Status

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yea and Nay. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.

Nominations for Historical Status

When nominating a group, please add a note to Template:Wiki News and add {{HistoricalGroupVoting}} to the top of the group's page.

New Nominations

The Crimson Clan

Yep, you read it - The Crimson Clan no longer operates in Urban Dead. Started in April 4th, 2007, The Clan made its first triumphs defending Dakerstown against zombie hordes - most notably Extinction. After few months of operating (and growing in numbers) The Clan took Havercroft and Ackland Mall as its home.

During the time in Havercroft (which lasted until the beginning of 2010) The Clan reached its peak in numbers (over 100 members working under the group tag) and also were among Top 10 Groups in the game. Clan also worked for keeping up the Mall and various resource buildings around it - mainly NTs - and also participated in the many sieges of Ackland during this time, gaining some reputation among the regular Mall residents. --Waak 20:16, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Too bad the Clan didn't become historic after all. But if we can't be remembered this way, I'm sure we'll be remembered in others. If anyone wants to contact the few of us that remain, our forums are still more or less active. Bye Crimson, these few years have been good ones. Rest in peace. --Jsrbrunty 22:49, 25 July 2010 (BST)

Yes (Crimson)

Definatly a name I reconise--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:21, 11 July 2010 (BST)

1. Yarp. Happy days fighting zergers in molebank. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:23, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   So this group fought zergers with zergers? That's new. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:28, 18 July 2010 (BST)

   I'm not the biggest fan of the group, but I definitely recognize them and knew of their impact in the Ackland Mall area. Think I may have even killed a member or two, now that I think of it some more... —Aichon— 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

2. Aye --Waak 20:31, 11 July 2010 (BST)
3. Good times...I think we made a big enough dent to be listed.--ErrorMaker 20:38, 11 July 2010 (BST)
4. Yes, definitely. --AlexanderRM 23:12, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   I remember you from back in my days KoBB days. You were one of the more noteworthy groups in the Ackland region. --Shatari 01:39, 12 July 2010 (BST)

   Huh, I hadn't heard about the zerging before.--Shatari 05:23, 14 July 2010 (BST)

   Sure I remember them. Actually dropped by a couple of times on their forums long ago. --Thadeous Oakley 18:16, 12 July 2010 (BST) --Thadeous Oakley 23:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   Even I know who they were. Technical Pacifist 18:27, 12 July 2010 (BST)

5. Yeah we did a lot in and out of our main area --Vinduska 18:45, 12 July 2010 (BST)
6. Yes. I've been out of the game for a while, but I have some very good memories of the Crimson Clan, and I think we had a pretty big effect on the areas we worked in. Also, I refute the allegations of zerging below. I have tried to stay up to date with goings-on, and have no knowledge of recent alt abuse within the Clan. I'd suggest that all those below examine their sources, if they have any, rather than use zerging as a cover for in-game rivalries and deny this influential group the recognition they deserve. --LK Oddjob 19:32, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   Did you actually read the resenz thread linked below? It's hardly a matter of opinion. 19:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   I myself was involved in the alt controversy, but if you'd care to note, that was resolved three years ago. We worked over an area of several suburbs, and at the time thought it reasonable to have alternate characters, provided they were kept separate. I acknowledge that at times some members gave in to temptation and used more than one character in the same operation, but that was the exception. I regret my actions then, but they were restricted to a few members of the group. Yes, the clan wasn't infallible, but we learned from our mistakes, and I consider we have more than regained respect in the years since then. --LK Oddjob 20:09, 16 July 2010 (BST)

   I don't know about you, but I consider multiple alts in the same group zerging. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:48, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   Its not, you can have 2 alts in the same group, but you can't have them in the same suburb, or 10 squares to be safe about it. Now it may be bad form (if you do it to boost on the stats page), but it is allowed.--Raddox MurTangle 20:29, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   That's still considered alt abuse. The DEM have been villified for years as a result and eventually recanted it. It was also one of the elements that led to the downfall of the Imperium (if I remember correctly). 20:49, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   It may be considered alt abuse, but technically it is not.--Raddox MurTangle 21:58, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   There are certain things that are disagreed upon. What if your character is 7 or 8 block from another? What if the horde of one character moves a little faster than expected and hits the suburb of another? Can the human character take a look around? Must the zombie specifically avoid buildings seen by the human? There is a gray area. --VVV ^RPMBG 22:13, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   10 squares apart to be safe, If you unknowingly or knowingly bring an alt within that distance than will suffer a search rate drop and a hit rate drop. So by game mechanics you are zerging. No gray area there. --Raddox MurTangle 22:17, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   So if you make a new character who happens to spawn within those ten blocks of another, you're zerging? And it's perfectly fine to have one character find a target, attack him, flee, and have a second character finish him off, so long as they never go within those magical ten blocks of each other? --VVV ^RPMBG 22:39, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   From what I've seen, there's a roughly 24 hour time limit you need to stick to between moving out and moving in with someone else, which means that you may as well just rest the first character and AP up again. As for spawning, from my own experiences, it seems to have some kind of an effect but I don't know if it triggers a full-blown flag or if I just had some shitty luck, but the only way around it really is to just get the fuck out of Dodge and let things right themselves. 22:43, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   It is 24 hours, your right, and if you spawn a new player within 10 squares of an old one then you should move them away as fast as possible. But all this does not matter if your dealing with a proxy zerger, because they do not suffer the lowered rates. That's a different discussion for a different time.--Raddox MurTangle 23:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)

   10 squares apart, you say? I noticed this group centers around Ackland Mall. If you take a look here, it states, "Please do not put one alt on each side of Caiger Mall and claim that this constitutes "separate suburbs."" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:21, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   I'm not saying they are not zerging, I know how bad it was when I was running a group there and I already made my vote as a no if you look down there V. All I am saying is that 10 spaces is a suburb, so the rule is "keep em a suburb apart" so basically keep your people 10 spaces apart.--Raddox MurTangle 08:32, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   Also, email Kevan and ask him for yourself, the zerg mechanics will not kick in if the same IP has 2 people in the same group if they are 10 spaces away.--Raddox MurTangle 08:35, 21 July 2010 (BST)

7. Yes. I consider we've contributed a lot to the game (especially the Havercroft area) over the years. At our best, we were well known to people all over Malton, not just in our patch of ground. There seems to be a lot of argument over the zerging issue. The Clan used to zerg openly, as did many groups at the time. As it became less acceptable and more groups turned non-zerging, our founder also passed a ban on it. Despite our previous zerging, this rule was followed and the few who didn't go along with it were disciplined accordingly. That rule was made over 2 and a half years ago. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about now. --Jsrbrunty 20:08, 17 July 2010 (BST)
8. Yes. In protest to dumb policies I'm voting yes on everything up for historical voting until forever. At least that way things that may have mattered will actually have a slightly better chance even if it means voting in a few piles of crap that had an impact on their members/participants. --Karek^maps?! 00:54, 21 July 2010 (BST)
9. Yes. Zerging was prohibited. As a result only my main remained in TCC. Stormys out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormys (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

   So, wait, you knew about the zerging, and you both stayed in the group and now support them as being historical? Wow. —Aichon— 09:55, 21 July 2010 (BST)

   I was new to the game didn't even knew what not, after i found out zerging is illegal i stayed only with main in clan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormys (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

   I can understand that, given that I've known other people who made the same mistake, but that you stayed in a group that knowingly supported it is what I'm questioning, as is the fact that you're still supporting them now. —Aichon— 23:34, 22 July 2010 (BST)

   The Clan didn't support zerging after the ban was passed within the group. May I repeat that that was over 2 years ago. Since then we never supported zerging knowingly, even in the smallest way. --Jsrbrunty 23:08, 23 July 2010 (BST)

No (Crimson)

1. Against - Whilst I've heard of you guys, and I've dealt with you as a member of Columbine Kids, I fail to see anything you've done that makes you historical. Noteworthy, perhaps, worth a mention in passing, sure, but not truly historical. 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   Jesus God burn that zerg nest with fire. 15:09, 13 July 2010 (BST)

2. Against - User:Whitehouse 20:29, 11 July 2010 (BST)
3. Against - The only reason I've ever heard of you is because the same guy who got me to try UD told me to join you. I have never seen you mentioned anywhere else. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:47, 11 July 2010 (BST)

   And one more thing. The Clan was home to CyAdora (aka SillyLillyPilly). She happens to be a major rapist, and in Shartak, the most well known by far. This is the worst she's done in UD, but in Shartak, she definitely crossed a line, and ended up spurring one of the largest controversies in the game's history. This is just one bad apple, but following Giles's excellent train of thought, it doesn't exactly encourage us to honor the group with the title of historical. --VVV ^RPMBG 09:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)

4. Yeah, I've heard of you. --
    
    
    
    
   00:42, 13 July 2010 (BST)
5. Heard of them, but not significant enough to warrent historical. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)

   Forgot about the fact that they were massive zergers too. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:01, 13 July 2010 (BST)

6. Only famous for being mass-zerging cunts. --Papa Moloch 06:26, 13 July 2010 (BST)
7. No - Moloch's link and this discussion were pretty damning. —Aichon— 07:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
8. So this is where the St Aden zerg army took off? That could almost be historical in and of itself. But not really. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)
9. Against - Sorry bud. There is a price to pay when your group gets caught zerging as part of their official policy. One of the sanctions for zerging around here is a loss of respect, and since the historical category is all about respect/e-penis I can't vote for you.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:30, 13 July 2010 (BST)
10. Nope As Giles. Technical Pacifist 15:34, 13 July 2010 (BST)
11. Negative - The whole zerg thing is the nail in the coffin. --ZiP^MH+LUE 03:36, 14 July 2010 (BST)
12. No It is the only rule in the game, no alt abuse. To knowingly break that rule in order to build a group negates any historic value that group should otherwise behold (in my opinion). Also, I don't sit well with their logic to abuse alts because "Pkers are asshats". Havercroft is a blight on all of Malton. I will never go back because of the amount of zerging players in the area. I ran a group in Ackland and quickly found out just how bad it was. --Raddox MurTangle 06:54, 14 July 2010 (BST)
13. No - Zerging is bad, k?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)
14. ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKE!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:38, 17 July 2010 (BST)
15. Against - Zergers don't deserve to be remembered... Whenever I see a zerger I take my axe and chop off their head >:] --Zensaga 13:41, 17 July 2010 (BST)
16. Against - Fuck, Cyadora had seriously managed to fool me back then. Unless she really was 40 year old with kids... --Thadeous Oakley 23:43, 17 July 2010 (BST)

    I think she really was, Thad. --Jsrbrunty 17:10, 18 July 2010 (BST)

17. No, fuck off.-- Adward  17:33, 18 July 2010 (BST)
18. Against - Zergs don't deserve recognition.--KyleStyle 01:11, 21 July 2010 (BST)
19. Against - Having looked into it, there appears to have been quite a bit of zerging going on with the CC. There have been plenty of groups that did more than you without having to stoop to cheating. --Shatari 01:05, 24 July 2010 (BST)

Recent Nominations

• 101st Airborne Unit - Failed
• Escape - Failed

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.