Talk:Dark

Start

ok good start, should something be added about the fact that the reduced attack rates are for both survivors and zombies? also we should start that list of dark buildings.--'BP^Tmz 21:42, 28 May 2008 (BST)

way ahead of you--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:43, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Yes you are. And good on you for it!--'BP^Tmz 21:50, 28 May 2008 (BST)

What categories? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:57, 28 May 2008 (BST)

The real question is, why have my attack percentages been quartered, rather than halved? I'm currently at 12.5%, rather than my usual 50%.. Necrodeus 09:38, 29 May 2008 (BST)

provide more info on, at least, whether you're survivor or zombie and what weapon this percentage stands for --~~~~ [talk] 13:00, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I concur with Necrodeus. I'm a survivor and after ~50 shots of my pistol (65% to hit), I only hit 9 times in a darkened building.--Terry S 02:03, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Let me clarify here, I play Zombie, and thw first day the change was implemented, I found myself with a 12.5% chance of hitting, rather than my usual 50% for having maxed out attacks. However, it then reverted to half, and I haven't seen it since. But just to say - I hate this update. I seem to come across dark buildings all too often, and as a zombie player I can't even light them. I just find it very annoying. -- Necrodeus 17:33, 7 June 2008 (BST)

What's the point of making this change affect only clubs, banks and cinemas? It's not like there's anything worth searching for in them anyway and other that being used as entry points, these buildings are pretty much entirely useless anyway. It's nice it affects armories, but there's only 2 in the whole city I believe. Also, I think the darkness penalty should be removed from zombies who have successfully landed tangling grasp on a target since sight would no longer play a part in whether they'd land an attack or not. --Demnos

The point is to have more locational variety / player effects on locations. I suspect that Kevan might expand the effect to malls (which notoriously lack windows) or some such if it plays well in the current buildings. And, from my experience, tangling grasp does EXACTLY what you say. I'm confident enough of this fact that I edited the page to mention it.  Swiers 21:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

This is all quite funny. Demnos clearly wants even more zombie favortism. Furthermore, the explanation for the darkness is that skylights are being covered. Clubs, banks, and cinemas generally lack skylights. As do military Armories. Malls and large building; however, generally benefit greatly from natural lighting. To put it simply, the desires of the game admins is pretty obvious. (added by shemoves)

Well first of all, this is a zombie apocalypse game yet 2/3 of the population is still human so I don't see this as zombie favoritism. Besides, you give semi-realistic reasons as to why some buildings stay lit and then call a very realistic point about tangling in darkness wanting more favoritism. Have you ever been in a mall with the power off, even in broad daylight they are dark. You might have a few lit patches in the hallways due to the skylights but 90% of the mall, especially the stores, would be pitch black.--Demnos

No Repair

So... as i understand this, if a building is dark, it can NEVER be repaired? WTF is this? --DoctorRevive 11:53, 29 May 2008 (BST)

You have to hook up a genny and then repair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Does the generator also have to be fueled? Or is a simple generator sufficient? --Jen 17:16, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Fueled. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:22, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I'm in a fueled club, and it's still too dark. Conniving 22:05, 29 May 2008 (BST) >_>

Ditto, I was in a 'dark' building with a powered genny and it said it was too dark to fix. It also requires 3 AP to fix. Question...how much AP does it take for a zombie to ruin a building? This update gives further advantage to the zombies...but maybe that is the point. (added by shemoves)

Definitely something's amiss. Buildings report as "dark" but still say that a generator is running. Attempts to repair come back with "Too dark to repair". Even refueling the genny does nothing. Brooooken. - Wyeast 01:48, 30 May 2008 (GMT)

Was bug. Is fixed.  Swiers 20:24, 30 May 2008 (BST)

It also seems that repair effort increases rather quickly; yesterday it would have taken 2AP to repair giles cinema (59,81), today it says 3AP. Theres a fueled genny. Outside it says ruined and lit, inside it says "The building is too dark for full repair work." --Swank 04:24, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Monroeville

Has anyone investigated whether any of the Monroeville-specific building types are affected by darkness? My character is dead so I can't. --Explodey 12:58, 29 May 2008 (BST)

kevy said so on his talky.--xoxo 13:04, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Jed, Explodey askey abouty these types --~~~~ [talk] 11:50, 31 May 2008 (BST)

dark or darkness

wouldnt darkness be a better name for this article ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 14:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

How about a redirect? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:30, 29 May 2008 (BST)

But in which one ? Dark redirecting to Darkness, or Darkness redirecting to Dark --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 17:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)

If the page is at 'dark', and you want to link to that page with 'darkness' as the visible text, you can write [[dark]]ness, and it will show up as darkness, which is just a little easier than trying to link to darkness with dark as the visible text. --Toejam 14:59, 30 May 2008 (BST)

I am entirely Meh. Lets see. As the update says the building is dark. id say keep that the main? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:36, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Plus if it was Darkness, I'm sure we would have people vandalising the page....you know, so they could attack the darkness?--'BP^Tmz 20:38, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I thinl dark, darkness, and dark building should all re-direct here. Its a shame you can't use key-words on wiki pages, because it would be good if any of the terms th game uses (such as "lights out") also lead here.

done and done.--xoxo 00:27, 30 May 2008 (BST)

"Generally"

"You generally will have to set up and fuel a generator before repairing a dark building that has been ruined."

Is there any reason for the word "generally" to be there? Is it theoretically possible to repair a dark, ruined building without a generator? --Jen 00:25, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Yes, because it is theoretically possible to find a ruined cinema, bank, club, or armory that already has a generator running inside, say if zombies ruined it but did not kill the generator before moving on. It wouldn't technically be a dark building (as it is lit), but it would look exactly like one on the map (would show as a ruin only- there is no special display for ruins with power) to anybody outside the building (not sure what the interior would look like - ruined but not dark, I suspect). In such cases, you NEED to read the text description to tell the difference. Also, some people seem to be calling any building that CAN be dark a "dark building" regardless of whether it has power.  Swiers 09:19, 6 June 2008 (BST)

So, basically..."In order to repair a dark building that has been ruined, a fueled generator must be present in the building"? (It's not the clearest syntax ever. But it replaces "generally will have to" with more precise information). I suppose I assumed that, if there was a generator already in the building (and perhaps even running!), the "set up and fuel a generator" part of the repair process had already been taken care of. Which is why the addition of "generally" confused me quite a bit. --Jen 03:01, 7 June 2008 (BST)

Would work fine for me.  Swiers 06:24, 7 June 2008 (BST)

Grip descriptions

You attack HellAngel Holly in the darkness, but miss.

Your attack does no damage. HellAngel Holly slips out of your grip and into the darkness.

eh... this should make it into the article. If i understand right the grip allows you to do non-halved damage, but once they've "slipped into darkness" it's half again. right...? --~~~~ [talk] 11:30, 8 June 2008 (BST)

That's my impression, but (as I noted in the article) its hard to demonstrate simply by looking at the game screen; you need statistical evidence. However, seeing text like the above is a big part of what lead me to suspect this. Maybe we could collect some statistics here to confirm / disprove the hypothesis? I'll set up a table below.  Swiers 21:40, 8 June 2008 (BST)

The table looks confusing. An example row would be great. --~~~~ [talk] 07:42, 9 June 2008 (BST)

As soone as I actually have some data. Its pretty simple- like a search table. Say your maxed out zombie spends 35 AP total attacking. 5 of those are bites, all made after you've gotten a grip, and 2 hit. That would give the line "Bite: 30% | 0/0 | 2/5". For your 30 claw attacks, say 15 were without grasp (4 hits) and 20 were with grasp (for 12 hits). That would give the line "Claw: 50% | 4/15 | 12/20".
Ah, I see why it was confusing now- my column headers were bad. I've fixed that, and have been cracking dark buildings looking for data. So far they have all been empty. So much for worries about survivors using them as forts. :P  Swiers 09:42, 9 June 2008 (BST)

I was in one that had 4 people (that's where those messages above came from), but it's empty on humans now... I can sabotage zombies though, i hope they'll literate enough to understand "Hangrah nah harman, hangrah az zbaggang zambah. nah harm." when i'll start tearing them. (out of ap, though) --~~~~ [talk] 13:41, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Statistics for Zombie Attacks in the Dark

Use the table below to record your zombie's results when attacking in the dark. Be sure to create a NEW ROW for each type of attack you make; if in the course of spending 30 AP attacking, you make 25 claw attacks and 5 bite attacks, that would require two different rows.

Type: Base Rate (total attacks)	Hits / Attacks (no Grasp)	Hits / Attacks (w/ Grasp)	Comments & Signature
Claw: 50% (43)	5/34	3/9	rotten luck, but no evidence either way for grasp effect (to small sample)  Swiers 21:24, 9 June 2008 (BST)
Claw: 50% (15)	1/14	0/1	more rotten luck.  Swiers 04:42, 10 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (37)	6/20	8/17	~~~~ [talk] 07:44, 10 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (17)	3/7	4/10	Fairly good luck this time.  Swiers 22:22, 10 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (24)	2/20	1/4	rotten luck has mee too --~~~~ [talk] 22:59, 10 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (31)	8/13	9/18	--~~~~ [talk] 18:45, 11 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (45)	7/24	5/21	Swiers 05:35, 12 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (212 from above)	32/132 (24%)	30/80 (37%)	Totals from above for claw:50% as of 05:35, 12 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (28)	4/25	0/3	whatever. 3 hits -> 3 failed grasps. 4th hit was the last AP --~~~~ [talk] 13:23, 12 June 2008 (BST)
claw:50% (50)	4/30	9/20	--~~~~ [talk] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (BST)

Conclusions / Anaylisis

My hypothesis from the above data is that the hit rate for maxed claws in the dark is 25%, and 35% once a grip has been established. Does anybody know enough statistics to figure out if / how well the above data supports that hypothesis? Having the values come so close after "only" 132 and 80 tests seems unlikely if the hypothesis wrong, but I don't know how to use chi-squares to figure out HOW unlikely.  Swiers 19:45, 12 June 2008 (BST)

I'd be inclined to trust the first one. It's a half accuracy attack as expected, and the sample size isn't too bad, and we know that human nature means it's probably a nice value like that. The second value needs more samples before you put a claim on 35% methinks. I mean, a report of 3/3 drives it up to 40%. And since the pRNG is less random than a coin with 2 heads, it might just happen. This all said, you could keep collecting and put some 'tentative' figures on the page. --  RoosterDragon  20:31, 12 June 2008 (BST)

30/80 = 37% ± 5%. Occama razor says it's 35% but we should keep spading. let's say something when there's 300 points instead of 80 --~~~~ [talk] 21:25, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Kevan confirmed that figure on his talk page. Main page updated.  Swiers 23:08, 13 June 2008 (BST)

Tangling Grasp

This still implies pretty strongly that there is a special effect, just that there are no current numbers for it. This is getting to the point where it's the new "Ransacks aren't searchable", or, better yet, the new "Interference requires Lurching Gait" and we shouldn't be encouraging assumptions without evidence being mentioned in articles as long as they use indefinite language.--Karek^maps?! 22:37, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Completely leaving it out implies that it provides no bonus, or that the bonus is also cut in half, which we simply don't know; that's all I intended it to say. I've been meaning to ask Kevan just what the intended / implemented effect is, but who knows.  Swiers 22:43, 9 June 2008 (BST)

My point is that verification is needed that it exists, not the other way around.--Karek^maps?! 00:06, 10 June 2008 (BST)

The games rules and flavor text strongly indicate that SOME effect exists. It may be that the normal 60% gets cut to 30%, it may be that Tangling Grasp is so buggy we'll never be able to tell with crude statistics. I think saying there is an effect, but its unknown, is reasonable.  Swiers 04:39, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Let's keep spading... --~~~~ [talk] 07:27, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Dead bodies

If they can't be seen would that mean they also can't be dumped? How about with ?dump ? Must experiment. --Toejam 15:33, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Strangely, the ?dump button still appears when dead bodies are present; it is only the scene description that is altered. Also, contacts that are dead bodies show up in the scene description, which can lead to rather confusing results. Both of these facts have been reported as bugs.  Swiers 21:49, 10 June 2008 (BST)

"There are five zombies here. It's Jay Walker" That made me laugh far more than it should have. --Toejam 00:53, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Zombie Tactic

I don't think this is right for a non-POV page, so I'm putting it here instead. Feel free to comment / flame. Zombie tag teams -- Necrodeus 02:43, 8 July 2008 (BST)

A bad idea at least as unbalanced as it is ...

Top attack of zeds will be 25%, if Tangling Grasp works (the percentage information is not changed so player has no information = doesn't work) zeds only have hand to hand skills, they can't turn the light on and the final nail in the coffin is that they will lose to a living human with a shotgun in the Dark, somehow it doesn't seem fair or even realistic... I was so annoyed by the "feature" that I finally registered myself so I could report it as a bug (the information isn't very visible to users), I don't favor any of the teams/side, I play in character, please do add some equilibrium to this thing... --Panic2k8 17:45, 8 July 2008 (BST)

Tangling grasp does work, and bumps the rate to 35% when applicable - see the extensive analysis above, as well as Kevan's direct confirmation. If you factor in the cost of searching up ammo (even in a powered mall with bargain hunting) survivors spend more AP to do the same damage in the dark than zombies do.
In fact, all your above complaints apply equally in normal buildings. In lit buildings, the percentage information is not changed so player has no information. A zombie will lose to a living human with a shotgun in a lit building.  Swiers 18:38, 8 July 2008 (BST)

I pretty sure I used Tangling Grasp and no visible bonus was added to attacks, so if it exists it is invisible to players, that's what I wrote above. You seem pretty one sided on your factoring you seem to be forgetting that zeds do have a lot of other handicaps to. If you look to things 1 on 1 zombies are the underdog, their strength is on numbers (if available), since most of the time they are forced in a position of hunter (they can't hide and build protections) and the game makes it very hard for them to coordinate, if living players cooperate effectively (and they have the means to), there would be no chance for zombies. In any case I stand by my affirmation that as it is the Dark is unbalanced in detriment to zombies, one needs to go as far as state that humans play defense have a unmatched ability to coordination and with this dark effect they also now have strongholds or at least safe houses across the city (it all depends on what equipment they have) and it is not very realistic I agree that a zombie should lose to a living human with a shotgun in a lit building, but not in a dark one. --Panic2k8 19:13, 8 July 2008 (BST)

Unless you're in monroeville, where dark buildings are the norm and the zombies do win. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:25, 8 July 2008 (BST)

Please refer to my comment above, what I have to say about the darkness update, and my suggestion of a zombie tactic. I agree that one on one, humans and survivors have it pretty much as bad as each other, at least, inasmuch as such a fight is always slightly balanced due to a survivors need to expend AP looking for ammo etc, but this doesn't take in the whole picture. Zombie tag teams --Necrodeus 00:41, 9 July 2008 (BST)

cading message

You spend a while searching through the darkness for something to barricade the doors with, but can find nothing. --~~~~ [talk] 19:23, 9 July 2008 (BST)

You manage to find some seats in the darkness, and reinforce the barricade. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:34, 9 July 2008 (BST)

No revifification?

Is that a newly introduced effect? I swear I've combat revived zombies in the dark...  Swiers 05:08, 10 July 2008 (BST)

barricading success is also affected by dark

I've experienced it. And I posted to Brainstock about this, just to get some confirmation. A reply from father thompson is buried in this thread (page 2 i think) where he confirms noticing the effects. --WanYao 17:16, 26 August 2008 (BST)

And just as Finis, you're lacking evidence. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:36, 26 August 2008 (BST)

What didn't finis have evidence for? He never really claimed anything...--xoxo 06:52, 27 August 2008 (BST)