Talk:Fort Perryn

All topics older than one month have been moved to the Fort Perryn Discussion Archive. Please add new topics at the bottom of the page, and use top level topic headings (single equal sign, not double equal sign).--Koppie 23:32, 23 September 2007 (BST)

FPDF Proposal - radio-free zones inside Fort Perryn (June 2008)

Due to the ongoing campaign of false and misleading information being broadcast on the Whittenside / Fort Perryn radio frequency, the Fort Perryn Defense Force is proposing to limit transmitters inside the fort to ancilliary buildings only (barracks, storehouses and vehicle depot) as they are not really that useful anyway, and are currently causing more harm than good. The more densely populated fort buildings - gatehouse, armory and infirmary - will be maintained as radio free zones.

Please post any comments, feedback or objects here: Fort_Perryn_Defense_Force/Radio_Proposal --Mad Dog Munro 22:02, 7 June 2008 (BST)

FPDF Proposal - EHB/VSB Barricade Plan (April 2008)

The Fort Perryn Defense Force April 2008 proposal and discussion regarding the EHB/VSB barricade plan at the gatehouse has now been archived here: Fort_Perryn/Discussion_Archive/Barricade_Plan_April_2008.

The proposal was implemented on April 12th 2008, and remains in effect as described below. --Mad Dog Munro 03:16, 6 June 2008 (BST)

• Fort_Perryn_Defense_Force/Policies
• Fort_Perryn#General_information

suggestion for the event portion of the front page

am i the only one that thinks it should be kept non-POV? posting zombie or human head counts, barricade status, and to an effect even the arrival of groups is one thing, but posting comments like "we will hold the fort forever" or about "dragging you outside" (i know, im guilty of it to) are not actually news, just peoples opinions and propaganda. it was fine when it was just a bit of ribbing but i think were all getting to into it and its taking up a lot of space. all those in favor of just moving POV posts to the talk page when they pop up?--Bullgod 11:43, 3 May 2008 (BST)

bahaha...i was about to write you an abussive message 'til i got to the 'im guilty of it to' bit :P Yes, i think its ridiculous it isn't like that already. I would have put this forward a long time ago myself but i'm not at the fort enough to feel like it's my place to change it. It should resemble the format and follow the generally (read: somewhat) excepted guidelines for editing a suburb news section.--xoxo 11:46, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I agree, but would just delete it instead of bringing it to the talk page. It's not really worth saving... --Cman yall 20:26, 3 May 2008 (BST)

people get pissed if you totally remove something from the wiki. just say POV post moved to talk page or something like that.--Bullgod 00:22, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I'm in favour; move to the talk page (except perhaps persistent offenders? in which case just delete) --Mad Dog Munro 02:11, 4 May 2008 (BST)

well yeah, but only after fair warning to tone it down.--Bullgod 02:52, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Moved from the front page

"May 26, 2008" Despite the noble attempts, by many survivors, the fort is beginning to fall. this is mainly due to the lack of survivors here and partly because o some trouble we've encountered with Gkers, namely, "HUGO DONG" currently taken by a zombie, he was caught in the act of destruction to generators and cades. we have but three options, as far as i can tell:

 1. Recruit more survivors to the fort and the suburb - this would involve mass restoring and cading of resource-buildings, as well as the Sherwel Building and the mast.

2. Evacuate the fort, and retreat into the suburb so that we can retake it later - again after more have come or after revives have been given out to those who need them. 3. The third would be for mass extermination of all zombies within the the fort, once again this would require a large amount of high level players with the cade skill. we would also need people to help take out the current infestation within the fort.

unfortunately i was separated from the fort after trying to take the gate house back from about seventeen zombies, and was forced to advance in the opposite direction. this is Mincent signing off from Perryn Fort 11:58pm (BST)

---

All Surivors need to come to the fort there are more than 300 people right now in the fort. It will never fall. If the zombies get in there are more than enough people to keep them from being inside for very long at all. --Wolf 14:07, 30 April 2008 (EST)

oh good, your finally getting cocky, thats usually the time things turn around for us.--Bullgod 03:25, 1 May 2008 (BST)

cocky?300 is only the one that is visable.There are 500 over that are not visable.They will just appear when the danger level increase.You needed a thousand zombie.

weve taken it dozens of times with fewer numbers than we have here now. we have always been out numbered. every time you humans take it back you think its the first. we will always win, you cannot hold forever. and sign your freaking posts, its not like its hard.--Bullgod 22:29, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Well well ,you know, we also take back the fort from you zombie countless of times aready.You cannot hold the fort forever Zombie.We will also win also in the end.So stop talking pointless issue and see who can hold the fort the longest period.

HAH! you think holding it is the fun part? we abandon it soon after we take it each time and let it fill up with harmanz again. the only fun part is busting in and dragging you all outside time after time. --Bullgod 06:02, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Take your bitchin' to the talk page, this is the news, not the fashion column. --Cman yall 08:29, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Abandon? let fact the fact.You AFRAID OF us .If you can hold the fort why not.This is empty talk show to us you can hold the fort.

Please sign your posts so we can see who we're supposed to be afraid of. --Zebedee Zyzzyva 20:07, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Shut the fuck up you fucking anonymous trenchie and read 9th siege of Fort Perryn at the end of this page. It was the likes of you, combat revivers and general scum who ruined the only chance of survival, so suck it up, and stop to fucking taunt and bitch around, do something useful and hold the god damn fort because Whittenside needs to stay alive. End of talking on news section. --Danilh http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1219593

Bullgod i sorry let peace together.Let have some green tea at my house.you like brain tea or red wine? We promise not to interfear you and your clan or the dead fort seige.The 500 invisible member will also not appear.I want to see how every surviver can survie without us.We will just take the fort over again when it is down.

Question

Does anyone know what group runs WTFR? I heard rumors that it was heathers with some others. They did play a part in harassing players constantly through the radio in this seige. --Rogue 03:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

That would be WTRF radio, run from our trusty pirate radio van Brunhilde, broadcasting live, no jive, filling the days of Fort Feral fans with all the latest news and fun from Team Ratfuck! --- ^TRF 12:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)

fall of fort perryn

next time we take the fort im writing it its historical entry, every time we take it you all make it like the impossible has happened. this is at least the 12th time we (the zombies) have taken it since the fort changes were made, and who knows how many times back when it had no walls. i dont mind talk of your bravery or how good your plans were (they did work fairly well) but give credit where it is due, the supposed "spys" didn't win this siege with spray paint and radio spam (which wasn't on our part by the way, but im not about to tell you who was doing it, you wouldn't believe me if i did), it was all the little zombie boys and girls banging at your doors that brought the fort down. any ways, next time im writing it from the zombies standpoint just to give you a taste of your own medicine. not to be spiteful or anything, im just tired of all the brave last stand bullshit every time.--Bullgod 00:21, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Everyone knows zombies are lower than dirt, though. No one cares about you. We just think of you as extremely mobile and violent shrubs. :P

In all seriousness, though, don’t mind it. It’s just a silly little bit of dramatic story-telling flavour for the bottom of the page. Let the trenchies have their last little comfort. --VI 02:02, 14 May 2008 (BST)

i will not let them have comfort, stay out of my fort! MALEVOLENT LAUGHTER! see? i can be stupid like you humans too. --Bullgod 01:53, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Zombies are human! Well most of them area... I saw a moose zombie once. --Cman yall 06:39, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Blasphemy sir. We Undead are the right hand of God wiping your destructive race from the planet so that nature may reclaim all that you have taken from it. --Bullgod 09:41, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Minion of the Alligator, you may be, but still human :P --Cman yall 08:54, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Yo Mama's an alligator. Also you indent to far so im fixing it. --Bullgod 06:35, 9 June 2008 (BST)

You're a minion of my Mama? And the indent was to seperate it from the other conversation.

Anyway, Zombies are dead humans. Survivors are live humans. To talk about zombies vs humans is just... illogical. --Cman yall 07:21, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Zombie is not a species. it is a race and a belief system. a true zombie will not play nice when revived, he will bash gennys and kill people if he can, especially targeting those who revived him. he believes in the spirit of Barhah and if in time he is not again killed he will jump from a building himself. there are those that play dual nature. just as there are people that call themselves certain religions but do not practice them. if we were the same we wouldn't feed on you and you wouldn't shoot us with your guns. we are separate in the way we think and act, in our baser instincts, to say we are the same is like saying that Gahndi and Jack the Ripper are basically the same guy. --Bullgod 04:55, 10 June 2008 (BST)

That which you describe is not a zombie, it's a death cultist. And it's still human. As were Ghandhi and Jack the Ripper. --Cman yall 03:45, 11 June 2008 (BST)

Someone put up that thing about arguing on the internet being retarded poster, im tired of this topic. im right your wrong, go breath you filthy harman.--Bullgod 07:21, 11 June 2008 (BST)

You mean the one about "arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics"? I love that poster :) But you're still wrong. Zombies are human too, and I am sick of hearing survivors claim otherwise. I'm also sick of people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is from "the other team"... what is this, American politics? In the real world, there are more than two types of person. --Cman yall 06:33, 12 June 2008 (BST)

There in lies the point. we are not in the real world, this is a game. you play zombie or you play human, and even if you play both you have a preference. just as does (if we can get back to the original topic) the person who wrote the entry for the last fall of the fort. it was a biased view and next time we take it im going to write a biased one in zombie favor.--Bullgod 09:21, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Agreed... and if you promise not to use the word "human" to describe survivors, then I promise to stop my whining :) --Cman yall 02:15, 13 June 2008 (BST)

You might have to keep crying then. Human translates alot easier than survivor into the zombie spoken tongue. (ie; Human/Harman, Survivor/Zerb!ber). So go preach to someone else, because ive been calling them harmanz for over two years now and im not about to change just because it bothers you.--Bullgod 02:03, 14 June 2008 (BST)

If further crying is required, I guess I can keep crying... Harmanz is fair enough, I guess, because of the limits of the zombie tongue... but zababarz could work too, and here in the wiki there's no excuse. --Cman yall 23:11, 14 June 2008 (BST)

Personally i don't care about the forts anymore. Its the same thing over and over again, we take the fort and then after awhile you retake it. --FreddeX 11:28, 16 May 2008 (BST)

that sir, is EXACTLY why we like them. you guys come back every time, if not you then some other new human who thinks forts sound cool. its like free refills.--Bullgod 23:31, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, and if the forts never fell, who would clean out all the trenchies and morons? --VI 01:48, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Touché i guess you have an point there. --FreddeX 17:28, 19 May 2008 (BST)

The barricade plan

With the search rates in the fort significantly reduced since the Dead have begun to leave the game, I wish to see the barricade plan reverted to the normal fort plan (VSB++ at all times). It is counter-productive to keep survivors locked away from easier access to ammunition, FAKs and syringes. Not to mention that it is still confusing to many people (at least once a day, someone asks how they can get out of the fort and are usually insulted for doing so). I recently spent 40 AP and got a total of 3 FAKs, a pistol clip, and a shotgun shell. This waste of AP will doom the survivor cause in the Fort. Your plan was fine for an experiment, but it is clearly failing and must be removed. Robert LORD 16:41, 11 June 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately, it's not just the fort buildings that are affected. The same thing is happening in the hospitals and PDs - we've documented 0 FAKs from 15AP, 2 FAKs from 45AP, 0 guns/ammo from 30AP etc recently. VSB-only would make sense if search rates were better immediately outside the fort, (e.g. at Anne GH or Sprackling Square PD), but there's evidence that they are (quite the opposite). Only the Malls seem to be unaffected, and the nearest one is Joachim - a 40AP round trip from the gatehouse. That's a 2-3 day round trip to stock up, so it's not as though survivors can pop in and out of the gatehouse to search, like they can at Creedy (where VSB does make sense for exactly that reason). It takes a couple of days to get there and back, meaning you only actually need access every couple of days, and that's exactly how the VSB windows are spaced.

Meanwhile the periods of EHB provide a clear benefit - ESPECIALLY when items are hard to find - because it means fewer FAKs and ammunition are lost dealing with the costant break-ins. Breaches are less frequent, and the zombies that do get in have fewer AP to damage and infect.

Given this, what evidence is there EHB/VSB barricade plan is 'clearly failing'? The objective is to improve upon the VSB-only plan. Since implementing it, we held out for well over a month during the last seige with virtually no casualties against a horde that reached 150+. With VSB only, the fort has fallen frequently to hordes smaller than that. It wasn't until The Dead arrived in their overwhelming numbers that VSB/EHB Perryn finally fell. But the same horde destroyed the VSB-only Creedy only a week or two later with no less ease.

The second evidence we have is this most recent recapture. We first retook the fort on May 24th, in a joint effort with The Fortress and the CDF. We maintained it at VSB only and it fell in less than a week. All our AP was being spent just dealing with break-ins at the gatehouse, with no opportunity to restock and revive. Outnumbered, we rapidly ran out of supplies. Then we came back on June 1st with the same allies and the same numbers (both survivors and zombies in the fort) but this time immediately adopted the EHB/VSB policy. This time the gatehouse held (against the same odds). This is the second comparison we have, and again it points to EHB/VSB being more effective (as several survivors who actually took part in both strikes commented at the time).

So while it could still be argued that time has yet to tell whether the complexity of the EHB/VSB plan outweighs the clear defensive benefit that EHB brings, the evidence presented above suggests that - so far - the opposite is true, and the VSB/EHB barricade plan is helping. If you already have clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, can you provide it? --Mad Dog Munro 04:43, 12 June 2008 (BST)

No, I do not have clear and convincing evidence to refute your claims, just as you had to rely on conjecture to make them in the first place. Every day is different and we don’t have access to an alternate reality where we can compare the results of both barricade plans under the exact same circumstances. That’s why all this talk of ‘we held the fort for a record time’ does not hold much water. There may have been fewer zombies, maybe they were less organized, and maybe there were more defenders holding the fort at the time. Nobody can make definite claims one way or another. Perhaps your plan worked initially because the enemy did not know how to counter it but have since adapted, and maybe you already had a built-in casual player base when you enacted it that does not exist anymore.

While it is not possible to compare barricade plans directly, my major argument is that I believe you are cutting off access to casual players who don’t want to deal with wikis, confusing barricade plans, GMT calculators, and the like. They want to have fun shooting zombies and leveling up, not just seeing if they can hold the fort a day longer than the last time. And they don’t want to be insulted or attacked for having dissenting opinions or for asking questions. I will argue that without these casual players, the Fort will not hold. While I believe you to be sensible, Mad Dog, and I have seen you being personally polite to those people who do not understand the complexities of your plan, I have also seen insults hurled by others (including some in your group) and a lot of ill-will stirred up. I have been on the receiving end of plenty of it myself. It seems to me the casual players are now bailing out of the fort because they don’t want to deal with these issues. If you are hemorrhaging these players at an accelerating rate, the fort will get harder and harder to hold because of it. I see fewer and fewer new faces, and fewer faces in general. To me, the key to defending the Fort is by getting as many dedicated people involved as possible, regardless of the barricade plan. Even with your plan, you have to open the fort up to VSB on some days, and those are the days that the zombies simply wait for.

And don't look now, but the Fort is currently ruined again. Whether or not it held an extra day or two because of the plan is irrelevant to me if you are cutting people out that could be helpful and enjoy defending the fort. Even if your rules held them off for a small amount of time, the question becomes: was it worth it? Was it worth the effort to deal with the confusion, the ill-feelings, the limits on syringes and malls? My answer to the question of whether it is worth it is a resounding ‘No’. Robert LORD 16:00, 16 June 2008 (BST)

You are an quite ignorant, Robert. I would like to meet you sometime. - CITIZEN VI 01:30, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Ah yes, more insults and implied threats. Lo and behold, these fresh ones are from a PKer… what strange circles the FPDF runs with. I have actually had more than one person thank me for speaking up on this subject. When I suggested to one that it might lend credence to the argument if he also spoke up, he told me he was afraid he would be targeted in-game. Sadly, after reading replies like the above, I can’t disagree. But I won’t be cowed. If you wish to “meet” me, feel free. I am not exactly hard to find, you know. I have been targeted rather frequently since I explained my disagreement, and it just serves to strengthen my resolve and make the detractors look poorly. Finally, a bit of advice: if you are going to attempt to insult someone, don’t call them “an quite ignorant”. It doesn’t really make you look like the proper authority on the subject. --Robert LORD 17:00, 18 August 2008 (BST)

Fort differences

I noticed that in Fort Creedy there are two barracks and one storehouse while Fort Perryn has one barracks and two storehouses,making perryn have more resources than creedy.Just want to point out that where the buildings are at and which suburbs the forts are in aren't the only differences.--Gamestriker4 21:03, 25 July 2008 (BST)

Fort perryn

how long have we been fighting to get and keep the fort? shouldent this be a historical event yet lol or is this just normal for fort perryn? --Fanglord2 14:57, 24 August 2008 (BST)