Suggestion talk:20090610 Mobs, Hordes, and Swarms

Discussion from Developing Suggestions

Unbalanced and not a good idea. Zombies can see any number of survivors (and their profiles directly, without contacts), and this removes a player's ability to discern between 25 zombies (a fairly large threat) and 100 zombies (a massive, immediate threat). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:10, 6 June 2009 (BST)

If we would change it, so if there is 25+ zombies there's lots of zombies, and if it's maybe 50 or 75 it's a horde? What would u think then? By the way, please sign all posts. --Rolfero 19:45, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Nah, this is just overpowering.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 6 June 2009 (BST)

So, the simple answer would be to do the same thing with survivors, right? Problem is you can't since survivors are seen individually.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how this is is strictly overpowering.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

At the very least you need a rough count (similar to EMR rounding), I mean you'd have to be thick not to be able to tell the difference between 25 zombies and 150. --  RoosterDragon  00:04, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the number shown is always off in a random range within plus or minus 20%. And it recalculates for every Player that loads the page. So, 10 zombies would show up as anywhere from 8 to 12. 100 zombies would show up as anywhere from 80 to 120. Fractions rounded, of course.--Zombie Lord 00:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the individual number for 1-24, "a mob" for 25-49 and "a horde" for 50-100... Should the need arise anything over 100 would show as "a large horde" Seems fair and clear and adds a hint of worry when the numbers start stacking up. --Honestmistake 01:09, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... or like a mix between Honestmistake's and Zombie lord's. First, the correct zombie number is calculated. Then it goes off within plus or minus 20%. Then, if this number is 1-24, you see that number, and if 25-49 a mob, and 50-99 a horde, and more than that a large horde. That way you can determine how big threat it is somewhat accurate. Maybe we could lower the 20% to 10% or 15%. Ideas? --Rolfero 08:17, 7 June 2009 (BST)

That might be a bit too much. This game IS pretty simple. All we are really looking for here is a "rough estimate" idea of how many zombies are present, right?--Pesatyel 08:47, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I'll suggest it as quickly as I can. Discussion will be moved when done. --Rolfero 17:38, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, Honestmistake's idea would probably be the easier to code so I'd say go with his. Now you just need to come up with a list of size descriptions and assign them a scale.--Zombie Lord 18:56, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You can't target specific zombies so who cares how many there are? Besides, when you do encounter 100+ zombies it's pretty fucking cool to see that there are a 100+ zombies there. Giving the exact number makes the zombies feel more badass when they win and the survivors actually afraid when they are very outnumbered. You know, like in a zombie apocalypse game... -- #99 ^DCC 19:46, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I like this suggestion, it is logical and it would add to the flavor of the game. I think the description should be scaled based on the number of zombies after 25 or so. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:49, 8 June 2009 (BST)

If anyone have any objections against the following: At 1-24 you see the direct numbers, 25-49 it's called "a mob of zombies", 50-99 it's called "a horde of zombies", and 100+ "a very large horde of zombies" (or just "a large horde of zombies"), please speak now. --Rolfero 17:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)

25-49 a "large group" of zombies, 50-99 "mob", 100+ "horde", 200+ "mega horde." --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Good suggestion. I will take the freedom to change "mega horde" to just "very large horde" --Rolfero 19:46, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If anyone have any objections against the following: At 1-24 you see the direct numbers, 25-49 it's called "a large group of zombies", 50-99 it's called "a mob of zombies", 100-199 "a horde of zombies", and 200+ "a very large horde of zombies", please speak now. --Rolfero 19:46, 9 June 2009 (BST)

"Mob, Horde, Swarm?" I would be against limiting the use of the word horde to groups over 100 but that's just semantics--Honestmistake 08:07, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... maybe 25-49: "large group", 50-99: "mob", 100-199: "horde", 200+: "swarm"? --Rolfero 11:38, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Keep it simple and lose the "Large Group". Mobs and Hordes just sound much cooler :) Oh and for the 100+ groups I think "Throng" sounds at least as good as "Swarm" --Honestmistake 14:08, 10 June 2009 (BST)

So 25-49: Mob, 50-99: Horde, 100+: Swarm? Or Throng? I think swarm sounds cooler. --Rolfero 14:21, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, Swarm does sound more menacing. For what its worth I'd vote for this... its kinda like taking zombie anonymity 1 step further --Honestmistake 17:03, 10 June 2009 (BST)