User talk:SK100

The End of Malton?

Oh look, another survivor who cries zerg because clearly no-one could organise such a thing. By all means, please continue, your tears make us stronger. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 16:13, 12 May 2011 (BST)

This is stupid. You are stupid. Go fuck yourself. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:42, 13 May 2011 (BST)

55555-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:44, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Hilarious

Not like this is anything new though. Even when The Dead are not around Survivors are coming up with zerging accusations when a zombie so much as dares to rattle their cades. But get fucking real. Have you SEEN all the level 1 Survivors in New/Old Arkham? And what's all this "the balance that kept Malton swinging back and forth for years has dramatically shifted against survivors" shit? What game have you been playing? When The Dead are not here this thing does not even resemble a "zombie apocalypse" (haha). It's more like Urban Homeless, where you have miles and miles of EHB powered buildings that occasionally suffer the minor inconvenience of a few invading vandals. "Undesirables" that are evicted in short order. It's sad that in a "zombie apocalypse" that Survivors consider almost total Survivor domination of the map to be the "normal" state of affairs. Jesus fucking Christ.--

| T | BALLS! | 16:26 12 May 2011(UTC)

Total domination by survivors would ruin the game just as surely as would total domination by zombies. --SK100 23:13, 12 May 2011 (BST)

??? 90% of the life of this game HAS been almost completely dominated by Survivors. Even when the ratio is at its usual 60%-40% Survivors control, what, 85% of the map most of the time? But let zombies take control for a little while and OMG it's time for Kev to fuck with the search rates so we can get back to Survivors playing kick the cripple again ASAP.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:22 12 May 2011(UTC)

I always thought that the game itself had automatic mechanics to alter search rates depending on the population ratio, so that better rates appeared when survivors were waning, or worsening rates when the survivor population got too large. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:29, 12 May 2011 (BST)

I suspect as much as well. It's way out of proportion when Zombies get the upper hand though. Especially when you consider the field day Zergs and Revive Dirtnappers have when they get insanely high needle search rates. I imagine that the ease of making dirtnapping revive specialists is so easy now that many, many, are being seeded at the moment. Which is going to make things even more ridiculous once things return to normal.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:38 12 May 2011(UTC)

That's mainly why I stated that zombies cannot kill all of the survivors in the game. They can bash every suburb and then claim victory, though. That is what I imagine that The Dead will have to do. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:44, 12 May 2011 (BST)

Well yes, that's why I always laugh when someone brings up "the end of the game". There are probably hundreds of idled out dirtnappers even at the best of times for Survivors.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:48 12 May 2011(UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. Maybe I'm missing something, but there is a huge difference between the two teams in terms of what it would take to recover from total elimination of one by the other. Suppose 20,000 active players, divided equally among those who want to play survivors and those who want to play zombies. Imagine a total combat revive. What happens next? All those who want to be zombies find the nearest building, jump out a window, stand up, and kazam! a 50/50 ratio is restored.

So take the opposite case. Suppose all survivors are killed and stand up as zombies. How do they go back to living? Since it takes one survivor to revive another, and there are no survivors, the game is simply over. Suppose, however, there are a couple of hundred dirtnappers. Chances are better if all the resource buildings are in tip-top shape. But with 20,000 zombies distributed evenly across a playing field containing only 10,000 squares, buildings will get ransacked before anyone can recover. So now, we've got a few hundred dirtnappers. When they stand up they can each revivify five zombies at best, were it not for the rotter standing on the top of the revive stack. Do you see what I'm saying? In the same way that the last two hundred stragglers were killed when there were resources in caded buildings, the next two hundred will be killed even more quickly in a ghost town.

I'm not saying it's logically impossible to recover, but it would take enormous resourcefulness, and once the high-EP strange-smelling bodies are taken out, it's definitely over.

So, what did I miss? --SK100 17:00, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, you missed that the GOD OF THE ASSPIES is going to save your ass for you. Again. Like last time. Surely you remember.--

| T | BALLS! | 15:37 14 May 2011(UTC)

Glad you like it

I'm not finished. Still pulling together some data. It's all speculation, of course, based on circumstantial evidence. But the circumstances are pretty amazing. When I finish, I'd like to hear your explanation.

No, I haven't been to New or Old Arkham. I doubt my character can make it there in present conditions.

I think a zombie+corpse/survivor ratio of between 6/4 and 4/6 is pretty stable. The current ratio is 6/1 and rising. Never in the history of Malton has the zombie-survivor imbalance been so far from 1/1. See Survivor-Zombie Imbalance and Game Balance.

--SK100

The numbers clearly couldn't change from an influx of legitimate determined players on one side. Oh nosirree, not in aspie numbers land (where until the latest march of the dead it was over 6/4 human much of the time anyway, btw) --Rise||||||||||||||||||||||||above 20:39, 12 May 2011 (BST)

OK. I've backed off of the accusations and stuck to the data. I like the results better. Thanks for the criticism.

SK100 23:07, 12 May 2011 (BST)

Let me spill the beans: While we (The Dead) might like the idea of the game (some of us, not all), we all unanimously agree that we hate everyone playing this game and have decided to ruin it for them. --ExtraNoise 04:54, 13 May 2011 (BST)

The idea of the game is a good one, it's everything else that's fucking stupid. From basic game design and programming to the fucking furries at the zoo and the super saiyan sparkle vampire wizard trenchcoat spergy fucking retards with their terrible videos with the bad edit that hides the 50 takes it took to make a basket stupid fucking retard shit fuck. That's the bad part. Cut all that out and maybe something can be salvaged. --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 18:03, 13 May 2011 (BST)