User:Extropymine/sandpit/archive

Scurvy Scroungers

Are you honestly going to tell us that guate6 3 and guate6 4 are two different players, one in your group and one not, both holding down the Mitchener Building as standing zombies? Apparently you haven't removed all the players in your roster who actively zerg. And since your leadership is standing there right with them, it seems you don't really discourage it all that much. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Skylights

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea, but I will point out: why do zombies need to reverse this? On this very page two weeks ago (during the discussion of night vision), there were people who called dark buildings a survivor boost. WanYao called dark buildings "the biggest zombie shaft ever." People can't have this both ways unless they're just being argumentative. If dark buildings are a zombie nerf, then you should line up to support this suggestion, since many dark buildings would be kept lit by ignorant free runners who do not understand what an advantage dark buildings are.

Protecting Generators

Timestamp:	~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 20:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Everybody, but mostly affects zombies attacking occupied buildings.
Description:	Built into the current game is a diminishing % chance for success when building barricades once zombies are inside. I don't know the exact numbers, but once 3 or 4 zombies are inside a building, barricade attempts usually result in the "You try to barricade, but zombies lurch into the way" message. I'm curious why there is no diminishing chance for zombies to destroy a generator in a building with dozens of survivors in it. Right now, it's one of the first things that gets done once zombies get into a building. Destroy the generator, making it impossible to call for help with a radio, reduce search rates, no rotter revives, etc., etc. A lone zombie can accomplish this even if there are 100+ survivors in a building. It's extremely frustrating, and often necessitates that survivors carry extra generators because of the ease with which they are destroyed. So I'd propose a similar diminishing chance to destroy a generator. You could give a message like You lurch towards the generator, but there are too many survivors in the way. My initial thought would be to use half the barricade %-- that is, if 2 zombies in a building reduce the barricade chance by 50%, then two survivors in a building would reduce the chance to attack the generator by 25%. If it takes 8 zombies to add -100% to the barricade chance (making it impossible), then similarly it would take 16 survivors to make it impossible for a zombie to attack the generator successfully. I don't know the precise numbers, as I said, but it seems like twice as many survivors would be needed, since zombies are scary and all. While the counter-argument would probably be "this change makes NTs impossible to destroy," I don't see how it would really affect well-organized groups like RRF or the MOB, who are smart enough to do all their damage at once using many coordinated zombie players. A change like this would only necessitate a slightly greater level of organization to take out a powered NT building. For other powered buildings, all it does is raise the challenge by allowing survivors the opportunity to call for help on their radios during an attack. Anyway, I'm interested in discussion on this. There are probably factors I haven't thought of.

Discussion (Protecting Generators)

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues conceptual issues which I'll raise here, followed by a game-play one. The first is one of space, which is very simplified within the game. When zombies break into a building they are positioned between the survivors and the door. The door occupies a small, fixed space and to barricade it the survivors need to access that space. Generators on the other hand are internal and their position is unclear, so there is nothing to suggest that the survivors in question would be anywhere near it. Indeed, experience of generators suggests that the majority would probably want to be a significant distance away, due (mostly) to the noise.

The other issue is that of narrative character dynamics. Zombies in the canon are essentially killing machines. All they do is kill, eat and create new zombies. Now, the flavour text for barricade blocking states that a zombie lurches into the survivor's path, which I consider somewhat inelegant and unlikely. I believe that what the zombies are (or should be doing) is lunging at the survivor and scaring them away. I believe that this is not used mainly because it implies an auto-attack, which is a big no-no in Urban Dead. Now, apply that to survivors trying to block path to a generator. Personally I find it unlikely and non-canonical for survivors, who fear death and injury, to throw themselves into the paths of dangerous, infectious killing machines in order to protect and object. Watch the films and attempts to protect are aimed at preserving lives, not lighting. For the most part survivors give zombies a wide berth and strike either from distance or with a speedy withdrawal, neither of which indicates a willingness to stand in the path of the onrushing hordes for the sake of a machine.

The third point is the game-play one: This would be a massive boost to the already extremely powerful combat revive weapon, which would make it potentially cataclysmic. --Papa Moloch 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to invalidate those concerns, but I guess I'm not sure I share them. On the "space" issue, we commonly overlook a whole bunch of these issues every day. If we try to "conceptualize" spaces in the game, why can't a survivor hide behind other survivors, or barricade the stairs in a tall building, or lock themselves in the bank vault? I guess I see the issue, but I also see how often we overlook that same issue. On the issue of "character dynamics," I would respond that zombies should not care about generators in the first place when there are so many meaty treats in a building. Perhaps instead of survivors "throwing themselves in the way," zombies should be unable to attack generators because there are too many tasty brains distracting them. Now, on the game-play issue, I cannot argue. It might change things, certainly. I'm not sure it would be as massive as people might fear, but even if it did: why not have NTs be strongholds? We complain so much about malls, maybe it would help to make the game less mall-centric? And aside from possible problems with NTs, does this have the potential to unbalance anything else? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested before. The main problem is that it usually ended up being an auto-defense. Or, if not, then it has significant zerge issues. One of the ideas I came up with last time was for players to "allocate" AP to defense. That is to say, I could allocate 10 AP to defending the generator (the AP is spent). If someone attacks said generator, the next 10 attacks will be affected (percentage reduced or whatever). After that, I'm not defending anymore. Of course, this also has zerge issues, so a level limit would probably be needed.--Pesatyel 04:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear how this presents zerg concerns? Zombies block barricade attempts; survivors prevent a building from being ruined; zombies prevent buildings from being repaired. I haven't heard people crying foul about those being significant zerg issues (though they might be, and i'm just unaware of it). ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly, those are already part of the game. Not much of a counter-excuse, admitedly. Its just the fact that your trying to introduce something new.--Pesatyel 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Buffing combat revives = bad. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reaction, but I think it's a knee-jerk one. CRs are sloppy tactics that win short-term gains but not long-term ones. Since all NTs are tall, a combat revive is basically a 4AP slowdown (unless we're talking about a low-level "career" zombie who took Brain Rot before Ankle Grab)-- stand, jump, stand, go inside at full health again. The survivor who CR'd, on the other hand, will spend ~6AP to find a new syringe in the powered NT. Worse still, they run the risk of the CR'd zombie rising and smashing the generator as a survivor. I'd also wager that when Barricade Blocking was suggested, someone said "Buffing horde attacks = bad," and ultimately it added tension, danger and excitement. Why shouldn't it be more dangerous or challenging for zombies to attack powered NTs? Right now, no building in UD is any more challenging to attack than any other building, it's just that some take longer to get the barricades down because of the population inside. The process is always the same: whittle the cades, get zeds in to prevent re-barricading, destroy the jenny, feeding groan, wait for reinforcements. It's fun but also formulaic. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Combat revives shouldn't be buffed because they are already overpowered. There is no other weapon in this game (excepting newspapers if you really want to get picky) that has a 100% hit ratio. In a powered NT this effectively has a 100% kill ratio. The majority of career zombies don't carry guns to break the genny because they don't want to spend their time in human form, and they shouldn't fucking have to! Syringes exist in this game as a mechanic to allow survivors to continue playing without having to start with a new character. The fact that this is allowed to be exploited is wrong, the fact that you want to buff this completely out of genre tactic with a logical fallacy that a human being is going to jump in front marauding zombie to save a replaceable piece of machinery and put their own safety at risk is so retarded you might want to think of running for sysop. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to calm down. Cursing and insulting me really isn't going to help me see your point. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to calm down, nor do I need to make you see my point, you are the one bringing the suggestion, you are one with the burden of proof, not me. Why do NTs (which are the ultimate beneficiary of this upgrade) need a buff to help them resist attacks? Downdey Mall was defended by the most intelligent survivor groups in the game, along with having some really stupid ones tagging along. Which do you think was harder to take? That or the nearby NT? Given that we understand this about the game, why is this needed? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is equally shared here, because I made a suggestion that you refuted with a blanket statement. You want more evidence, and so do I. You want me to show that the suggestion does not unbalance the game, and I want you to show me that it does. The fact is, neither you nor I know for certain what would happen if it was harder to take out generators. I believe it would be one less hassle that survivors need to deal with when even a single zombie gets into a building full of people. Any building, not just NTs. You believe it would make NTs impregnable because of combat revives.

Your anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than mine. In your anecdotal evidence, NTs are already hard to take out. In my anecdotal evidence, they are very easy to take out. I suppose under various circumstances, both are valid. However, in both our experiences, the NT was taken out. Your attack was rough but not repelled, and you destroyed the NT. If you hadn't been successful, would something be wrong with Urban Dead?

I don't believe every zombie attack has to be ultimately successful for this game to work, because this game is clearly not about one side winning. If one side is ever in danger of winning, Kevan changes numbers around to bring it to a stalemate again. This game is about stalemate, and having a good time trading blocks and suburbs, green-to-red and back again. So I think that if NTs were harder to take out (and I'm still not convinced my suggestion would stop a well-organized horde like RRF or MOB from destroying an NT anytime they set their minds to it), what would happen?

Let's take a worst-case scenario and say NTs became the hardest buildings in UD to destroy. I suppose my advice would be, "then don't try to take one without your horde." No one here is giving any sympathy to a lone survivor who complains that he can't re-take Ridleybank. They laugh at him, because he's trying something incredibly difficult without a large, well-organized group (and even then, I dunno). If taking NTs became incredibly difficult, the same logic would apply. Don't want your Rotter to get CR'd? Then don't go into an NT. It's that simple; they don't have extension cords to CR you on the streets. But well-organized hordes would eventually start taking them down, because players are resourceful and want to overcome obstacles. Taking out NTs wouldn't be routine anymore. It would be difficult, and require more than just a handful of zombies with Brain Rot to do it. But those who did take out NTs would have something to really brag about.

Finally, let me get back to the idea itself. You think that survivors protecting a generator instead of themselves makes no sense. Personally, I think lots of things make no sense in UD. 40 survivors sleeping through a zombie attack makes no sense. Having a zombie stumble into a building with 40 survivors and decide instead to eat the generator makes even less sense. Generator-killing is a meta-game tactic, not an in-genre convention. But I accept that survivors protecting the generator might not fit. So, again, as I stated above, perhaps the flavor text of the effect could be changed to You lurch towards the generator, but are distracted by all the fresh meat or something similar. Make it about the zombie's urges rather than the survivors' bravery. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do I start?

"Your anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than mine. In your anecdotal evidence, NTs are already hard to take out. In my anecdotal evidence, they are very easy to take out. I suppose under various circumstances, both are valid. However, in both our experiences, the NT was taken out. Your attack was rough but not repelled, and you destroyed the NT." - The difference is mine, as with Rev's 'anecdotal evidence' below is based on the experience of defending and attacking hundreds of NTs, over years through the various updates.

"I'm still not convinced my suggestion would stop a well-organized horde like RRF or MOB from destroying an NT anytime they set their minds to it" - The RRF, MOB, MT2009 and The Dead will never have a problem taking any building they choose. This is a direct result of years of tactical evolution. It's the smaller hordes that will have the problem. You should not have to join one of the Big Four if you want to crack a single building. It's not like an individual case you're referring to, as with MCM being more difficult to take then a normal hospital, you are rolling out a blanket change amongst all buildings with absolutely no downside. Have you ever taken down a NT as a feral zombie? Perhaps you might want to get some experience with the type of play you will be affecting before altering it in a fundamental way. If this goes through they'll be less than 10 hordes that could take a NT, the Big Four, Minianz, RFTM, Swarm, FU and perhaps a couple of others. Nerfing the feral zombie class is a bad thing.

"But well-organized hordes would eventually start taking them down, because players are resourceful and want to overcome obstacles." - Why do you think it's acceptable to force zombie players to be more resourceful whilst making survivors live easier? Why aren't survivors being more resourceful in protecting the generators in a building as they do with TRPs in a suburb?

"But those who did take out NTs would have something to really brag about." - Why do you think we want to brag about something that you've made more difficult with no downside? Why would we want to brag full stop? Do we wear trenchcoats?

"You lurch towards the generator, but are distracted by all the fresh meat" - The zombie is a predator. The updates prove that they can learn on a fundamental level. Removing a generator causes panic and reduces the ability of the prey to fight back, how is this unbelievable in any way? Also, how could the zombies ignore street meat by your justification? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, thank you. You may think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. You took the time to talk this out with me, which is what I wanted. I still don't agree with you on a couple points, and I'm not crazy about your tone, but that's not as important as acknowledging that you responded in a way that makes me want to listen what you have to say. It's food for thought. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What I, and indeed Kevan from his barricade blocking update, want is for the casual player, who does not metagame to be able to play the game fully. The cade blocking is designed, and indeed now used exclusively, to allow casual players to benefit from the work of the meta community without having to join that community. In the MT we use this tactic as standard, we go in and do nothing but groan, cade block and ?rise. This allows the casual players to come inside and eat humans, whereas before you could have two hundred zombies inside a mall corner in a coordinated strike but if a single survivor started to recade before they followed the groans, the casual feral was screwed. You generator blocking will mean that NTs manned by 15 to 20 players will be all but impenetrable except by the coordinated meta hordes. If an NT cannot fall, the resultant impact on a suburb that any zombie group can have is minimal. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Survivors can already protect generators. It's called ?fixgen, ask 404: Barhah not found about the time they fixed the generator 18 or so times in a row while holding off Extinction's Shadow Company death cultists. This is a buff to reward lazy survivors, which there are already too many of. Generator off? Search with slightly reduced rates or drop another one. Can't revive the rotters? That's why there are trenchcoaters with 17 shotguns. Or, yes, drop another one. Survivors throwing themselves in the way or harm for a piece of easily-replaced machinery is nonsensical and very very out-of-genre. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past (and maybe even today), it is easier to find an revive syringe than it is to find a Generator. In an area where humans can easily get revived by saying Mrh? while it takes more time to find and transport a generator, I can see it being in theme for human beings willing to sacrifice themselves. Lives are cheap in Malton. Generators are not.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 22:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's just one problem with that. Getting eaten by zombies (I have no firsthand experience in this, though, so I could be wrong) sounds highly unpleasant. That combined with the thing called "self-preservation instinct" would probably persuade most people to just give the zombie some alone-time with the generator. At least he's not chewing your arm off. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly why the phrase combat revives are overpowered is correct. Revives in general are too easy to do at this point and it's not good for the game. --Karek^maps?! 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Topgun: I think it's a great idea in theory.

i personally don't think it's in genre for zombies to attack a generator over attacking a human. Considering zombies only smash things to get to humans, it seems ridiculous that a zombie could strategize enough to disable the human's power supply instead of just running straight for human brains- as they are meant to do.

however, in the context of the game, where zombies are paradoxilly controlled by humans, it would be hard to avoid unbalancing the game. If you did introduce this zombies would have to receive some sort of attack percent bonus in fully lit areas- zombies being attracted to light (as is the cause in almost ALL zombie canon) would therefore have an incentive to go directly for their true target. This would also create an interesting dilemma for the humans, as they would have to decide to kill the lights themselves and have a harder time equipping, or leaving the lights and becoming more obvious targets to the zombies.

That is the only way this could work.

Also, if survivors can't erect barricades while zombies are in the way, then zombies should not be able to destroy equipment such as this while humans are in the way- if an AP'd player is standing in the way of the generator, surely he would have to attacked in order to reach it. If he can get out of the way, out of fear, then your that's suggesting an AP'd player can essentially dodge zombies. --Topgun 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough I was thinking about this yesterday... I was going to suggest making radios and generators invisible to zombies without "Memories of Life" reasoning that they don't so much not see them as don't recognize them. To compensate for what is effectively a penalty to the zombies I would think giving ransackers a chance equal to their normal attack to damage them by chance might be fair?--Honestmistake 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's interesting, but I'm not sure it would change anything: you need memories of life to open the doors anyway, so the first zombie in would have it, and will still kill the genny first. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really... my rotter is a feral and on the few occasions that i do manage to get inside i am lucky if i have enough AP to yell some abuse and infect someone let alone ruin a generator! In an organised horde it probably wouldn't matter, but then an organised break in of 10+ zeds is going to ruin your day anyway. ;) --Honestmistake 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• If I was in a zombie apocalypse, and I knew which way zombies would be coming in, I'd sure as heck put the valuable generator as far away from the entry point as possible- ditto for radios. Then it makes sense that there'd be survivors between the zeds and the genny, and since at any given time most building occupants are inactive (asleep) they wouldn't flee to one side or the other. Ash Cianatti 01:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If I woke up in a room full of people to see a zombie attacking a generator and ignoring all the man-meat I'd probably go back to sleep thinking it was a dream... Why would they have more interest in a hunk of metal than me? The only excuse would be if they were attracted to the noise, in which case I could go back to sleep as long as I don't snore. A change along these lines would encourage zombie to attack survivors first which (IMO) is how it should be.--Kamikazie-Bunny 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to start a second round of discussion on this, but I feel as though it might be tainted by the flaws in the suggestion as is. Are people okay with me starting a new header, with a less defined "suggestion" starting it off, so that we're not distracted with the flaws in the original suggestion? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)