Developing Guides

Developing Guides

This section is for presenting and reviewing guides which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• If you decide not to take your Guide to review, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter. You may move the discussion to your guide's talk page if you wish to preserve a record of the discussion.

Adding a new Guide

Post all guides in the following format, changing only the text in red to reflect your Guide's name;

==[[Page Under Development]]==
--~~~~
===Comments===

Cycling Guides

• Guides with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.

• Any Guide posted on Guides/Review Should be removed from this page, any comments on this page should be copied onto the Guides talk page.

Please add new guides to the top of the list

---

User:Chief Seagull/Working for NecroTech

A little something I've been working on - while Guides:Scientist briefly covers all aspects of science-class characters, this one is specifically geared toward NecroTech scientists. Any bases I haven't covered? Any bits that still need work? ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 16:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At a first glance, it appears to be a nice little RP-flavored guide. I might give you a grammar-nazi breakdown in a bit. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall solid, but... I disagree with not reviving PKers. Heavily. The damage that PKers do is of little actual consequence (just compare kill costs with revive costs), and they typically grab a revive earlier than later from some clueless labcoater anyway.

Reviving them gets you on their white list if you are lucky. In the worst case, they just treat you like any other survivor.

Scanning them and then purposefully not reviving them however is cruising for a bruising. Some PKers are plainly easily pissed off and kill you for neglecting them wrongfully. Others will recognize you as someone who knows and cares about PKers - someone who might be an easily upset crybaby that feels strongly about being PKed and shows a satisfying reaction, or someone who could snitch to the RG and thus raise the bounty hi-score. Either means that you will be PKed, potentially multiple times if you prove to be the right kind of shark bait. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's really just anecdotal evidence; heck, most of the ones I know "repay" the reviver with bullets. But regardless, this is supposed to be a pro-survivor guide and, while skipping a PKer *may* have them target you, it still stands that you're reviving someone who will turn around and kill other survivors. Which you'd have to spend 10-20AP reviving. Which is, overall, counter-productive to the whole "pro-survivor" ethos. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"When you grab a revive, always smooch off the locals first. That's 10AP that are spent by the local survivor population rather than by Cobra, and we like it that way."-Cobra PK Guide. -MHSstaff 20:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? In my Developing guides? It's more likely than you think! More at 11. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 21:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interests? My Dual Nature revives PKers indiscriminately, plainly because it's common sense to do so. Denying revives is not only fruitless, but proves that you are a great target that will care a lot when it's PKed. Further reading on this tangent: MCM's PKer Policy (the group I see running into trouble with PKers _the least_ plainly by healing and reviving them like everyone else, and otherwise ignoring them) and Amber's inside scoop on how not to get PKed -- Spiderzed▋ 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly see where you're coming from Zed. When I wrote that, I was thinking about how reviving a PKer/Cultist would affect the local population rather than the individual. It would certainly make sense to mention how reviving the PKer might get you on their whitelist, but that's a gamble as it depends on how the PKer plays the game. Reading through Amber's guide has also flagged up something I haven't mentioned on the guide - zergs and text-rapists. Question is, how do I describe a zerg in a way that fits in with the rest of the guide? ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 12:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added more about reviving PKers, rapists and zergs. Look okay? ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk

Not really happy with the quanititative comparison ("more reviled") between PKers and zergers/text-rapists while the difference is more qualitative, but I can see your troubles with mentioning to DNR text rapists/zargarbargarz while keeping up the tone. Wouldn't have a better concrete suggestion either. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this from a meta point of view, both zerging and text rape have been addressed within the game mechanics itself (zerg flags and ignoring contacts) while PKing hasn't, so (from a survivor's RP perspective) saying that they are more reviled is accurate. If I can think of another way of writing this, I'll try it. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 13:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There, I think this reads a bit better now. What do you think? ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 13:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/CobraPKGuide

We have a few PKer guides on the wiki, but none that I'm happy with so far. They are good at teaching the basic "max your guns and hide in dark buildings" drill, but hardly go beyond that. (Possible exception is only the Siege PKer guide, and let's face it, it's more about death-cultists who use PKing as one of their tools, than about the run-of-the-mill PKer who doesn't care about the zombies being winning.)

I looked to write up something that is easy to pick up for beginners, but still teaches some advanced tricks without going to deep into tangents as actions via question marks, or the way that the RG works.

Don't mind the formatting at all, it's purposefully basic and half-assed currently. 1.) My proof-reader this time isn't wiki-savvy at all, and as she devotes her spare time to help me on this I don't wish to needlessly bog her down with tables and other fancy clutter. 2.) The guide will be integrated with Cobra's new page design, which isn't even finally decided yet - don't feel like doing the same work twice. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you mentioned Cutey so that's a big thumbs up! The advice given is good and the sidebars are helpful. There'll always be people who disagree with the weapons distribution issue, but you make it perfectly clear that this is a personal preference so that's not a problem. The only hole I can pick in this guide at the moment is a couple of superfluous apostrophes (it's = it is / its = belonging to it or relating to it), and that's just me being über-fussy. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tidal Tactics

Cast an eye over it, peoples? Mostly looking for more examples to give and perhaps some better layout-ing. 16:00, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Firstly, I think you mean fail, not fall in the opening paragraph. Secondly River tactics is not based off hyper organised large scale movements. I can, and have done it on my own. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Secondly, you don't always start at point 1, and you've made no mention of darks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:10, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Zombie river? Regular river is just a tactic of avoidance, but zombie river is based on the inevitable victory of a massed horde. And no, I meant fall. 16:12, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Your opening paragraph cites river tactics, not zombie river. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:14, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Thirdly, Id say blackmore fell as much to do with Beachhead Tactics as to zombie river tactics. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:13, 14 October 2010 (BST)

See those to me are interlinked, the former an important factor in the success of the latter. 16:14, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Indeed, I'd mention them both. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Man, I hate to say it but you should probably dumb it down. Don't assume that everyone that could benefit from the guide reads at a college level. Don't get me wrong I thought it was well written, just probably too well written to retain the attention of everyone. --~ 16:33, 14 October 2010 (BST)

"due to successful beachheads, it was the attrition of the constant Tidal Tactics that prevented the survivor foothold from spreading to other buildings. " Virtually every building in Ridley was reclaimed, and several of the trp's had 20+ survivors in them when blackmore fell. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:41, 14 October 2010 (BST)

For reals? I'd asked and was told that nothing was held for more than 24 hours at a time. If that bit's wrong then I'll take it out. 16:42, 14 October 2010 (BST)

who told you that? Factories, hospitals were up for days at a time. Thats why the constables were able to attack them with strikes most evenings. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:43, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Oh. I'll get to fixing that then. 16:44, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Yeah, when the constables took time to focus on a TRP, it fell rather quickly. Otherwise, it was just your standard feral-smash-cade act. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 16:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Most buildings were repaired and caded, but there were very few occupants, with the possible exception of the TRPs close to Blackmore. Blackmore itself fell due purely to Beachhead tactics. As Papa Moloch put it, "we barely had to flex to take down Blackmore. The first semi-coordinated evening attack finished the place immediately." --VVV ^RPMBG 18:27, 16 October 2010 (BST)

Oh, and SFHNAS weren't really trendsetters. Give some respect to Rowcliffe Must Fall --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:44, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Added. 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I skimmed through this when you made it yesterday, and it looked really good then. If facts need qualifying (a la Ross' comments) sort that out, but it's looking pretty good from what I can see.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:46, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Since you're mostly a survivor player, your thoughts on the notions of demoralisation would be great. 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

In terms of the demoralising effect of somebody dying? Not really, imo, but my home suburb's been ruined for 2 years, so I may just be used to it. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:59, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Just trying to find the balance between encouraging "log in, fucking hell zombies, run" and maximising AP effiency. 17:01, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I'd be somewhat in line with Yonnua (and my home suburb, while adjacent to his, hasn't been ruined for two years). You can't really do anything to demoralize the survivors: most of the ones that have doubts just cut and run at the first sign of trouble, leaving behind the stubborn ones that'll stick it out until the end.

Given that a siege is a war of attrition (survivor supplies v. zombie patience) you (might) want to put in a section on preventing zombie demoralization. You know, just a few ways to keep the ferals entertained and keep them from getting distracted and chasing other opportunities.

Now, stylistic nitpicking.

1. You should break down the "Play by Play" bullets into paragraphs (either with a double space or <br>). Right now it's reading as a wall of text, and that's going to turn off casual readers.
2. "...was reached primarily due to Zombie River Tactics, due to successful beachheads, it was the trickling effect..." You should join the bolded clauses to read "due to zombie river tactics and successful beachheads" as the current format breaks the the flow.
3. As George Orwell once famously took eight pages to say, get to the point. So far as I can tell, your thesis, "hit it hard, keep hitting it, then hit it again tomorrow," is all the way in the third paragraph and doesn't really stand out. I'd recommend you move it to the end of paragraph one, around where you've bolded tidal tactics, and possibly bold it as well.

1. On a similar hyper-nitpicky note, just link straight to Zombie River Tactics instead of being creative and saying "true river tactics." It's an unqualified statement, and it isn't readily clear what your talking about. Similarily, I have
2. And while it's great for flavor, most people will have no idea what the hell "Marzan" is. I'd recommend a brief explanation of the word (i.e. "Marzan -the city's true zombie name-"), so you don't lose your reader. Also, you don't need to link to it twice.

That's all I can think of at the moment. It's a nice read, but right now it's far from reader friendly. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 17:58, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Talk:Guides:Ghost_Town_Reclamation Iscariot's insights into how to make a guide American friendly. Well worth a read. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:49, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Whilst entertaining it's also quite specific to GTR. :/ 16:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

think it shows what level you should pitch at! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:58, 14 October 2010 (BST)

I've pretty much done everything here bar the excessive dumbing-down. How does it stack up with the changes considered? 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)