Talk:Screw the Dead

Mass harman organisation? No wonder they voted someone else mayor... 04:54, 2 June 2011 (BST)

This would essentially be Escape all over again. Once the zombies reach a critical mass, which is somewhere around 100, there's very little the survivors can do against them. The Dead have more than enough for critical mass, so trying to hold out in conflict like you suggest is suicide, and this is coming from someone who has been in leadership positions with some of the biggest and best survivor and zombie groups currently in the game. Once you get to that size, zombies win. Period. Especially so since any survivors you round up will be less organized than The Dead, who have a Firefox extension available to them that helps them track where the brains are in the city.
Right now, smart survivors are having no trouble staying alive and finding revives, and there are entire suburbs that are nearly fully repaired if you know where to look. The trick is to know who to talk to and which groups are doing okay. If you're having trouble getting revives, move to a new suburb, put out feelers with other groups, and start sleeping in plain sight. —Aichon— 07:24, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Actually critical mass is roughly around 2000. 100 is almost inconsequential when it comes to sieges. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:06, 2 June 2011 (BST)

In the old days, yes, 2000, but not since zombie interference was introduced. It's FAR less these days, and active survivors can only get you so far, as Blackmore 4(04) demonstrated (IP hits become a major issue). That said, my 100 number is just silly, and I blame it on being tired. Even so, Escape showed that 400 survivors against 100 organized zeds, all in the same block, results in a zed victory in about a day. —Aichon— 08:53, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Meh, I don't know much about the blackmore raid but I do know 404's tactics fairly intimately. It's a meta-core strategy but has some issuses, like IP hits you mentioned because they're core meta is too small for it. In meta-coord heavy strategies your required cycle group size increases by a very large factor relative to your group. The factor of increase is dependant on the randomness and consistency of strikes and can be minimized based on your level of knowledge about the enemies activity and your group's use of standbys. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:46, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Actually, it could be easier to explain by what crit mass represents to each side. For zombies critical mass is enough ferals that any break in draws actives that increase the effectiveness of minor coordination. Generally this means at least 5-10 zombies per break in every break-in, at least that's the sign you're getting close. However, survivor crit mass stops that. Survivor crit mass is enough active survivors that any lowering of the cades is instantly repaired. It actually requires a smaller number of players to achive and varies based on the type of building greatly because of the second condition of a possible survivor crit mass(they bhav e two scenarios) which is a large enough resource advantage to nullify or reverse any break in through healing, needling, or gun and dump+cade. It's clearly the harder scenario to achive but in malls or hospitals it's actually easier than the zombie crit mass but, in malls it is harder when a corner falls because of how much that would reduce the average cost of Zombies to kill. The second method is more effective against strike teams, the first against ferals. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:56, 2 June 2011 (BST)

I'd rather the Dead have to spend time and effort fetching me and my allies rather than all of us gathering their food for them.--Penguinpyro 09:09, 2 June 2011 (BST)

All survivors gathering in one place?
This can only end well -- boxy 09:22, 2 June 2011 (BST)

You go there, and while the dead are distracted, I'll repair my museum on the other side of the city and start collecting paintings.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:33, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Sadly, you'd only get rid of one third of The Dead. They need to keep their 2+ other The Dead alts away, after all. -- Spiderzed█ 12:42, 2 June 2011 (BST)

This is true. Unlike you we discourage zerging and do as much as possible to force our various zombies into different sections of the map. Sort of like spreading the love except it's teeth and claws. --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13:22, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Unlike me, you actively ask all your members to join the same group and work towards the same goal. That they do so in different corners of the map doesn't make that less alt abuse than what Extinction Alliance and DEM pulled off years ago. As for zerging, I still await your submission of your so-called "evidence" to the Zerg Liste to get it reviewed by an independent third party. Alternatively, provide Soph finally with that ominous "script" that removes full stops from the game output for no apparent reason. Or as an even better alternative, Kate and Sykic could finally stop to weasel around the topic and admit that their screenies have been forgeries (and very poor ones at that). Everything else you might have to say on that topic will go down much better once that has happened. -- Spiderzed█ 14:42, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Who the fuck is Kate? --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 15:59, 2 June 2011 (BST)

I still await you submitting that report or were you too fucking stupid to pick up upon the very very subtle hints?--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 16:06, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Do you know who Kate is? --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 16:08, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Alt abuse, or zerging, as defined by almighty great lord and amazingly talented programmer Kevan says your characters can't act together. No attacking the same person, no healing or reviving each other, no nothing where they interact directly. Anything other than that is you adding your own morals onto it and fuck you and your morals because they don't mean shit. And seriously, who the fuck is Kate? --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 16:29, 2 June 2011 (BST)

ALRIGHT, GUNS UP

LETS DO THIS! MAYYYYYYOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRR MCCHHHHHEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11:05, 2 June 2011 (BST)

THHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMASSSSSSSSSSSSSS -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:25, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Yes please

it has been most difficult to find targets these last few months, so I commend your attempt to provide us with some, my good man. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:33, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Yeah!

Lets all go and repair a suburb with no Necrotech facilities! Thats a fantastic plan! --Rosslessness 12:40, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Proves one thing...

After contacting only half of the active Survivor groups (and ONLY contacting pro-survivor elements) we have all kinds of zombies salivating (drooling really) at the prospect of this initiative. I have long suspected that most every Survivor group has been infiltrated by zombie elements - this all but proves it to me.

I don't care who was voted mayor - I seek to lead out of necessity rather than political mandate. This is not simply the latest UD event; when we succeed this initiative will lead to new-found cooperation - a new Survivor philosophy for Malton.

Unless all of you are cowards and remain content to play along with the status quo as your zombie alts.

"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite" - Joseph de Maistre (1811)

Mayor MC Cheese 12:47, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Every worthwhile survivor group is strongly "infiltrated by zombie elements". You need to have played a zombie to become a survivor player of any worth. Couldn't throw a dead cat without hitting a zombie player in 404, and so I couldn't in any other worthwhile survivor group. -- Spiderzed█ 12:55, 2 June 2011 (BST)

OMG Zombi SPAI!!1! --Kirsty Cotton 12:59, 2 June 2011 (BST)

"(diff | hist) . . Talk:The Malton Globetrotters‎; 00:15 . . (+49) . . Mayor MC Cheese (Talk | contribs) (→Please read this asap: new section)" Might want to rethink your definition of the word pro-survivor chief. --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13:22, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Yo zombies how dare you read what I spammed on the public wiki (the logical conclusion: zombie conspiracy controls all harmanz)

Je suis une baguette - Napoleon Bonaparte (1632 AD) --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:42, 2 June 2011 (BST)

P.S. Mayor McCheese, you are a special breed of retarded --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:43, 2 June 2011 (BST)

how Special are we talking?--User:Sexualharrison13:46, 2 June 2011 (bst)

The idea isn't Too bad...

...but you're execution is all wrong. If your goal is simply to revivify as many survivors as possible and get the ratio of zombies down, gathering at one location in a sort of mega RP could work. People would die. A lot. But as long as they're ok with being killed repeatedly and can revivify 3 or so before being put back down/standing back up it would work. That was the idea behind Mrh?stock, which I was going to put forward when the survivor ratio was super low and search rates were absurd. Kind of a protest to the search odds mechanic. Now that survivors are on the rise again and search rates are back to normal, I don't see the point.
It seems like what you're doing here is not not what I described, however. If you're looking to hold a siege against The Dead, you can expect to fail. A lot. Survivors ratio is climbing right now because they are hiding in plain sight, dirt napping, hibernating and whatnot. You can't honestly expect to have every survivor march to their doom against The Dead and survive. The survivor ratio would hit the floor again.
Good luck in finding enough lemmings to blindly follow you into the void. If you do end up getting a following, I suppose we'll get 1 syring per AP search rates again. Just don't expect me to waste them on the stupid herd Mrh'ing in and around Luckcraft Bank. ~ _{15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)}