User:Pesatyel

Zombie Regeneration

Timestamp:	Sara M 04:39, 30 July 2007 (BST)
Type:	Balance change.
Scope:	Zombies directly. Everyone indirectly.
Description:	This is probably ready to go to voting, but I thought I'd run it through here just to see if anyone could spot any glaring holes in my argument that I missed or important ramifications that I had not considered. This is not a new skill, but rather a possible replacement for the way HP works for all Zombies. It would change the HP mechanism for Zombies so that HP regenerates at a rate of 1 HP point per half-hour. (For Zombies, and Zombies only!) This would remain in effect whether a Zombie was standing or lying down as a Dead Body. Zombies would NOT regain their entire HP up to 50 upon standing. A zombie with Ankle Grab that stands up for one AP after being killed would still have to wait at least 1 half hour (or less, depending on how it was timed) in order to regain the 1 HP needed to become active again. Digestion or FAK's would work as normal of course. This change would effect zombies directly, but also those who wish for an immediate Revive as well, so in effect, it would impact both groups. I think this fits more within the general guideline of "slow game play" as well. I would also suggest that Revived Survivors do not jump or fall to 25 HP. They would simply keep the same HP they had as a Zombie. A Survivor who was killed in a siege, jumps up with 1 HP and gets revived, would maintain their 1 HP status. OTOH, if they lay there on the ground until reaching 50 or 60 HP, they would also maintain that. Which I think is fair, considering the time involved. This would make getting up too quickly a bit more dangerous, as a Survivor could drop the Zombie again more quickly if it did not wait until it had gained some HP. Killing Zombies would...mean something. I think Zombie HP is counter-intuitive now, misleads new players, and actually encourages the Trenchcoating that many complain of. If a character actually had to pay some price for death, it would open up new options for both sides. Survivors could actually go on the offensive for one thing. If they do so now, it's useless, unless they simply knock a zombie down to 5 HP or so and retreat to their safehouse so such a zombie would be easier to kill and dump later. With Zombies being attacked in the order they are in their stack, even that is limited though. Any zombie player with half a brain picks up Ankle Grab as soon as possible, and after they do (after a measly 200 XP) death becomes nothing and Headshot is a joke. Smart play means sitting behind cades and only killing to dump a body. So it seems to give Zombies all of the effective offense, and more importantly, the initiative 100% of the time. This suggestion would make hordes less invincible as well. The way it is a 150 zed horde never really loses strength, no matter how many of them are "killed", as long as they hold together. With some zombies being picked off for extended periods of time, a horde would either have to slow down in order to "regain their numbers", or press on in a weakened state. I think this would make large scale sieges flow more naturally as well, with characters on both sides being "out of action" for a longer period of time, turning them into true battles of attrition, with measurable change in zombie/survivor population, and a huge battle might grind down to a desperate struggle between dwindling forces. Individual effort and decision making would be more important. When high level players on either side went down it would be more of an "event". Players might agonize over when to stand up, maybe they feel they don't have enough HP, but the battle is going badly for their side and perhaps they should stand up to help. The timing would be more critical when it came to such matters. I think this would make Digestion much more valuable as well, with Zombies having low HP timing their standing, waiting for a good opportunity to gain some quick health by munching on Survivors. It would require some skill and patience, rather than a half-second button press and 1 to 6 AP to regain their health quickly. Contrast that to all the AP's a Survivor must spend themselves in order to get a Revive, but also the quite expensive AP costs associated with those that Revive them: the Revive itself, any additional AP's spent searching/making syringes, plus healing. Zombie Players might not like this at first glance, but hear me out. While it would slow down Zombie attacks, it would also have an effect on Survivor Revives. With Survivor players having a reason to hunt zombies, it would also get them out from behind barricades once and awhile. If some survivors groups decided they would rather be hunters than squatters, perhaps buildings in general would be less heavily defended and thus easier to "crack". Zombie diversion tactics could be more effective, with organized hordes using groups of themselves to draw out survivors and perhaps lead them away. Sure you get a few Survivors out now, but with a real reason to leave their buildings, you could also draw out even more Survivors. When not engaged in active combat, or while "sleeping", Zombies would at least be regenerating HP. Not a bad thing for them. In small scale attacks, depending on how long it was between separate attacks from lone survivors who duck in and out of buildings while Zombies "sleep" outside, a few hours worth of hit points could mean the difference between being Headshot/giving the Survivor the 10 point bonus or having some HP left over to boost up with Digestion once the Zombie wakes up. If this was implemented, it could naturally lead to a new Zombie skill, such as Advanced Regeneration, increasing the HP gain per half hour by x amount of HP points. Also, I think if it were to be implemented, that it would open up the possibility of a change in the way Headshot works as well, possibly to something other than an AP drain. While I find Headshot sort of useless as it is; in general principal, I dislike anything that takes another players AP without it being their own decision. My intention is to try to make the game more open and provide some expanded options for all involved. I think it's time the game moved past who can amass the largest gathering of forces and jam on the Attack Barricades/Build Barricades buttons faster and with more active players.

Discussion

Discussion (Zombie Regeneration)

I was actually going to suggest something similar, but your suggestion is better :). I dislike the Advanced Regeneration, because even without it, in 24 hours you'd regen 48HP. If it was merely doubled, you'd regen the full 60 HP in just 15 hours, which is pretty damn fast.
Headshot could work so that HP goes negative, but that might be a little too harsh. It'd be logical that you'd have to lay down a little longer if you've been seriously hurt, but it would gather some fearsome opposition.
The HP aspect doesn't actually harm zombies very much, because a zombie's primary means of regaining HP is attacking. The main objection would probably be: "DON'T NERF MAH ?rise!!!!1". --Midianian 11:59, 30 July 2007 (BST)

My counter to the Nerf complaint would have to be that it effects everyone evenly, canceling any gain in that regard on both sides, and that the main intention of the suggestion is to give Survivors some offensive capabilty. Thank you Midianian. Looks like this was not near as "ready to go" as I thought. :)--Sara M 23:00, 30 July 2007 (BST)

They almost never are :) --Midianian 13:29, 31 July 2007 (BST)

I am a little worried this would really hurt survivors (stupid enough to be) caught dead without a FAK. Zombies could go to revive points, infect all standing zombies, and take them down to 2-3 HP. If the poor player is revived soon after, then they become living while infected, with less than 5 HP, and no FAK, which means they die and the whole cycle happens again. I would suggest that revivifying bodies also recharge HP until they stand up. Alternatively, infection could go away upon revivification.

I also think it is a little strange for the revived to be able to stand up at full health; I would suggest that standing up from revivification halves your HP (rounded up).

I like the new zombie tactic of attacking Mrh? Cows at revive points, but if it becomes too powerful revive points will become secret, hurting unorganized survivors. Smiley 19:22, 30 July 2007 (BST)

Just have to make Zombies immune to Infection. :) They should be anyway. Thank you for your input.--Sara M 23:00, 30 July 2007 (BST)

Zerg Alert: this would make XP farming massively profitable.

1. Zerger kills Zerger's own zombie.
2. Zerger's zombie stands up ASAP with 1 HP.
3. Zerger kills Zerger's zombie again, for only a couple AP.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 for 10+ XP each time, with a cost of 2-3 AP per time.

Indeed, this sort of XP farming doesn't even require zerging; any group of random zombies could co-operate to make gobs of XP this way. Is that a big enough hole to make this worth voting kill / spam on? I think so, yes. __Swiers___ 21:21, 30 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose it would have to include striking the 10 point bonus for Zombies killing Zombies. That would help keep such senseless/anti-RP tactics from being employed. Shouldn't be rewarded for killing your own side anyway. If that were the case it would only be XP for damage inflicted. My dislike for zergers is steadily evolving into loathing.--Sara M 22:36, 30 July 2007 (BST)

There is a big problem with making HP-regen happen like AP-regen. Imagine I'm a zombie who just broke into a building with 10 other zombies. 10 minutes after I finish attacking I get headshot and dumped outside. I then get nearly 24 hours to HP-regen before I stand again to attack as normal. Imagine instead that I am the last zombie to get headshot and dumped, and it was 30 minutes before I usually play. That simple fact alone has made me *much* more vulnerable being killed again, possibly even whilst I am playing. Now I've had to stand *twice* in one session (and that would be 30 AP for a non-ankle grab zombie), and can hardly achieve anything. I think this is vastly overpowered in placed where the survivors/zombie activity time periods are placed in a certain way. One of the really good things about UD is that any person can just just for ten minutes per day, and then leave their survivor/zombie where they leave them. When others around them play doesn't affect what they do, or how they can play the next day, just what they do. You suggestion changes that.

Why don't you just make it so that zombies also stand at 50% HP. As ?rise-ing meatshields they become less of a problem. Bite and the digestion skill actually becomes something worthwhile for a zombie to have. Personally, I consider the infection such a weak skill that Digestion and Infection are one of the last skills I advice the zombies in my group to get. If zombies had a need to recover HP (it would explain why they are so hungry all the time!) then getting digestion early would be necessary and useful. 'arm. 01:57, 31 July 2007 (BST)

That is actually what I was going to suggest (standing up at 50% HP, that is). It's a bit of a compromise, but it has less points of objection while keeping most of the advantages.

• It nerfs ?rise, but still keeps it as a viable tactic.
• It makes Digestion and biting more useful.
• It makes killing zombies have an effect, other than draining a little AP.

Also, headshot could make you stand up at 20% or 30% HP (because 25% doesn't divide evenly on 50HP) instead of having a higher AP-cost. Stand up-cost for people without Ankle Grab should be adjusted, because lower HP has an implicit AP cost. --Midianian 13:29, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, thanks for expanding my point. Rather than babble on here, I'm going to post it above so that everyone can join in the discussion. 'arm. 04:17, 1 August 2007 (BST)

I can see one factor people seem to be missing. This could hurt newbies. A new player might not know not to stand up right away (especially afer acquiring Ankle Grab). Also, as 'arm was saying, what happens if I die just before playing? Now I have a "full" (minus stand up) AP allotment but 1 HP? I wouldn't even be able to acquire a second HP in the time it takes to play unless I stand around. Then I'm practically guaranteeing I'll have to wait a full half hour to get back the 1 HP I had when someone kills me. Even a survivor has it easier with FAK.--Pesatyel 05:51, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Survivors deal with a version of that now, with new players running out to blow zombies away outdoors before they finally learn it's a pointless pursuit. (Some never seem to learn that though) In a way I can't blame them really. The way it works now is counter-intuitive and I doubt they decided to play UD with the "fun idea" of searching around for a Generator for AP's on end. --Sara M 13:52, 1 August 2007 (BST)

This is in response to both arm and Pesatyel, concerning the sort of annoyances that you are both talking about involving being killed while playing and being held up in play. This is something Survivors deal with all the time. Logging in to find yourself killed pretty much does mean another player has effected what you will do. It's quite an investment in both AP's and time, especially if you consider the Revivers time and AP's spent as well, and all of that has been decided for them by another player. When a Survivor dies, it's very much like when a Zombie suffers a Combat Revive, except that Survivors don't have the very convenient option of simply throwing themselves off a building in order to "get back on their own side" quickly. Survivors do a lot of busy work to get their Revive, and none of it is very fun, and certainly not what they were looking forward to when they logged on.

Zombies have much greater control over the destiny of Survivors. Dedicated Zombie don't have to deal with that, they just pay their AP and are right back in the action, even if they are killed a few times. Even with Headshot, 12 AP's to stand twice only begins to approach the 10 AP cost just to be injected with a Revive syringe even once.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be quite a disparity there with "convenience of play" and others controlling your destiny. I don't personally mind when others have some control over my play, I just think it needs to be evened out between groups. I don't think standing up at 50% HP will achieve that. With the way I worked it, Zombies still have greater AP/Time efficiency, but at least Survivors could take a breather and feel like they have done something constructive if they do drop a Zombie, rather than killing a zombie and having right back up and chewing your face off half a second later, which I think will still happen if a zombie gets half it's HP.

In comparison, the Regeneration idea is still fairly convenient for Zombies, by that I mean they don't need to do much; just wait for their HP to get to a comfortable level. A zombie wouldn't have to lay down until they reached full health either, just until they were comfortable and perhaps saw an opportunity for some Digestion HP. It would make Zombie play a bit more of a decision-making opportunity. Most Zombies I hear from say they don't bite because it's useless, but with this they would now need to weight their options: Should they go for the lower percentage Bite attack and hope for HP or go with the more certain Hand attack?

Zombies are always "ready to go" as it were. For every session a Survivor is doing something they actually want to do, they must spend another session (or more) searching and preparing. If you throw in their sessions devoted to getting a Revive, Survivors are held up with busy work quite a lot, while Zombies rarely are, and have much more convenient ways to get to where they can be doing what they want to be doing. Survivors have high costs to time and AP's, while Zombies have little of either. Barricades make a Zombies expend AP, but Barricades aren't much of a problem as long as there are a good number of Zombies present and they "share the load" of taking the cades down. If you look at pure numbers you could argue that the balance is actually more even but that is why the initiative is such an important aspect. With Zombies always deciding when an attack should come, they always end up with more active players because it's just easier to organize a timed attack than to respond to one. Survivors can outnumber the zombies attacking them, but it means little if there are only 25% of them are active.

A Zombie that uses up all its AP and gets killed is just going to be gaining their HP right along with their AP. My Suggestion only really cuts down on the efficiency of Zombies that get killed prematurely, so that they can't get up immediately and use the rest of their AP. It just puts them out of the action in the same way Survivors are, except it's still cheaper for Zombies.

Also, I think this will make not only Digestion more powerful and useful, but Infection as well. If Survivors did venture forth from their barricades in "strike forces", they are going to be much less equipped to handle such infections, especially if they venture into Zombie territory. Without their Tactical Resource Points to stand on top of, they would have to rely on only what they had with them.

The more I think about it the more I think that this would serve to cut down zerger efficiency drastically as far as Combat zergers go. Both Zombie zergers and Survivors zergers are going to end up on the ground with little HP. They couldn't just leap up as often at their AP allowed. Make it more of a hassle for them anyway. As you say, meatsheilding might become much less attractive and useful. Also, as 'arm points out, ?rise is made much less effective by having to regenerate from 0. We might actually have a siege were overuse of such gimmick/loophole tactics are vastly decreased in effectivness, and hopefully use.

I think there is potential for more Zombie boosts to be accepted as well, if they take this cut in efficiency. --Sara M 13:47, 1 August 2007 (BST)

First of all you didn't even counter my argument. You just whined about how survivors have it SOOO tough when they die! Boo hoo! Guess what! It's SUPPOSED TO BE HARD to get revived. The point of survivors is to try and SURVIVE. Yes that sounds easier than it is, but it isn't that difficult. I don't know if it's still the case now, but a few months a go I read reports of survivors that NEVER DIED. And it isn't that hard to limit the number of times a survivor dies since that's the basic point of the game. Don't die. As I said, this suggestion seriously nerfs zombies. Now if this was combined with arm.'s idea it might have merit. It isn't just about "waiting to get to a comfortable level". It ios also about WHEN players can play. Wouldn't it piss you off if you logged into your character to discover he/she only had ONE HIT POINT? Even if survivor dies they stand with 25. Survivors and zombies have significantly different game play styles. Why do you think PKing is so popular? I know of survivors that have never even SEEN zombies. One of my favorite points in the game was when I logged on to find I was not dead. I attacked a survivor, getting in some hits and he killed me. I stood up and chased him until he killed me again. I stood up a third time got in a few hits and he killed me a "final" time as I was out of AP (and at the time I didn't have Ankle Grab either). I had lots of fun. With this idea, I'd have gotten to use like 10 AP to attack before getting killed...then that's it. There would be no point in standing up since I would have had one hit point and even had I gotten a quick Digestion in, he would have easily killed me before I could do anything. Wow. Fun. So in that narrow 20 minutes of time I could play, I would have gotten to use 10 of my 50 AP and now would have had to wait a full 24 hours before I could play again. The only thing I can say, right now, is that you should actually play a zombie for awhile.--Pesatyel 03:31, 2 August 2007 (BST)

I do play a Zombie, and I did counter your point. You've just very effectively proven my own. You don't want to spend down time for dying once. Survivors who die once do have to spend that down time and suffer just what you are complaining about if you did have down time. I would suggest that it is you who are failing to see things from the other side.--Sara M 04:11, 2 August 2007 (BST)

Okay, show me where you countered my argument. My argument is that logging in for the day with 1 HP is an overpowering nerf for a zombie player. And, I'll add, I LIKE the idea (if you add in the discussion above). You just have a shitty suggestion here because it is a giant nerf to zombie PLAYERS. Also, as I said, my ROTTER can get a revive within a day or three. Hardly difficult. Or did you expect to not have to actually WORK to get that revive? Oh and the "down time" for zombies is having to spend the AP to stand up. I'm not saying that's always good (the whole Ankle Grab/Headshot thing is broken). Oh, and I'll add that I had to spend 30 AP in my example above to stand up.--Pesatyel 07:35, 2 August 2007 (BST)

My counter is that you are simply wrong about it being and overpowering nerf, and I illustrated that by explaining that Survivors go through a lot of time and AP to achieve what Zombies do rather quickly and cheaply. You can make it sound like an overpowering nerf, until one illustrates that Survivors are already nerfed in this regard much more severely than Zombies, and my Suggestion only attempts to balance that disparity of being taken out of the play. Even a high level Survivor is "nerfed" more harshly than a Level one Zombie without Ankle Grab. Survivors must pay more than 15 AP even under optimal circumstances (see my response to 'arm's version of this), along with being taken out of their preferred role and wandering off to get their Revive. That effectively means that dead Survivors must pay all the costs that any Zombie is expected to plus Revive costs thrown on top. A Zombie can expect that a Survivor they kill is no longer a real threat. That Survivor has a lot of boring busy work ahead of them, and they're most likely going to try and get it over with ASAP. You mentioned the annoyance of being held up in your play. Survivors deal with that all the time, and there is nothing overpowering about suggesting Zombies should do the same, by an even more convenient and cheaper method than Survivors pay. If a Zombie logged in and found themselves with 1 AP and had to log out in order to wait for regeneration, that’s not much different that a Survivor who logs in to find themselves dead, except that the Survivor must get up and move to a Revive point before logging out to wait for their Revive. My Suggestion makes that waiting safe and convenient for a Zombie, because they only have to lay there, while a Survivor is going be under the risk of being killed again during their own wait because of their need to actually stand up to get to their Revive point. This only balances the “wait to play” aspect of the game between groups while still giving Zombies a cheaper cost and being safe while they wait, while Survivors are still paying more and being at more risk while they wait.

If a Survivor encounters a lone Zombie and kills it as your example shows, that Survivor should expect that to mean something similar to the Zombie as it would for them, rather than the Zombie simply standing up again with full HP. I don't mind at all working for a Revive, but Zombie's don't have to work at all for getting back into their preferred mode of play. You are saying Survivors should expect to work for something that a Zombie should not? Zombies should expect to very effectively cull Survivor numbers with their kills, but a Survivor should not? Why the double standard? Clicking a button and being up in a 1 second is not "down time" by any stretch of the imagination. That would involve actual time, not an AP cost. You could argue that AP is time, but it's not. It's a simulation of how much a player could achieve in a set amount of time. Being killed 'live' should have an effect that simulates that. Jumping up in 1 second is not a good simulation of that. You still have your AP, but your death should effect how you can spend it for that moment. With my Suggestion both Zombies and Survivors gain the benefit of knowing that anything they successfully kill with skill, is not going to be instantly nullified for a mere button press worth of actual time that requires no skill to use.--Sara M 10:05, 2 August 2007 (BST)

"Simply wrong"? WTF? I understand your reasoning now, even if it's stupid. I'm talking about PLAY TIME. Imagine you can only log into the the game for, say 20 minutes a day at roughly the same time every day. Now imagine when you do, you find your character has ONE HIT POINT. How much fun do you really expect to have, playing as a zombie, with ONE HIT POINT. Whining about the boo hoos of what survivors have to go through IS IRRELEVANT. Even a survivor turned zombie trying to get a revive can still play, even as a zombie. And yes so can the zombie with 1 HP, but, as I said, how much fun is it going to be when you can die so quickly?

• Worst Case Scenario: You stand up from headshot (-15 AP). Walk 5 spaces (without lurching gait; -6 AP). Encounter a survivor and die from ONE HIT with headshot. Stand up (-15 AP). You've just used 40 AP and walked a total of 5 spaces. You have 10 left. Hope you don't die. Or move.

That's what's going to happen to newbie players more often then not, presuming they don't just give up trying to play that day. Maybe the zombie will get lucky and, instead of moving, get a couple of hits in with Digestion...if they have it. And, now that I think about it, wouldn't this make getting revives MORE difficult? Simply speaking my argument is NOT about the trials and tribulations of in game matters or how hard it is for survivors to get revived or anything. It's about FUN and about PLAY TIME. A lot of players only get to play once a day at specific times. If your suggestion, the way it is, goes into the game people won't be able to play as ooften because they will be constantly waiting for their HP. This suggestion hinges one on single thing: When your character is killed between the time you play on day x and when you play again on day x+1. If your lucky your zombie will die quickly after day x, but the longer it takes the less you can play on day x+1. Zombies are players too.--Pesatyel 04:03, 3 August 2007 (BST)

I've already covered your "play time" concerns extensively, though you apparently choose to ignore, as "irrelevant", any play time concerns that don't directly involve Zombies.

I asked you to SHOW ME. Not just "tell me" you did. You whined about how hard it is for a survivor to get a revive. That doesn't "counter" what I said. I also countered that argument with how easy it is for my rotter to get a revive. You also talk about seiges being "true" battle of attrition (with this suggestion), but don't factor AP in. That's a "natural" limiting factor.--Pesatyel 20:56, 4 August 2007 (BST)

That you're just now realizing that this would effect Revives, despite that fact that I mentioned it in the original Description and it's been brought up several times since then, suggests you might need to read more carefully. Your Worst Case Scenario ignores the Description of the Suggestion about how Headshot would most likely need to be changed in order to allow it. The overall effect would actually help Zombies by pressuring the removal of Headshot's AP drain while paving the way for some more substantial Zombie boosts (Perhaps even dropping the AP cost to Stand Up out of the game entirely, as Ankle Grab effectively does that anyway), possibly expanding their play options, while still giving Zombies a Time/AP advantage over Survivors regarding "waiting to play". All players in the game become "Zombies" upon death. This effects all players evenly, so I'm not sure where your "Zombies are players too" angle comes in to this. Your Worse Case Scenerio also assumes a rather stupid player. I would give Zombie players more credit than that.

Ah, but you DIDN'T DO ANYTHING with Headshot. Saying it should be changed isn't changing it. Make it part of the suggestion since that is significant. And how does my scenario assume "rather stupid player"? A lot of players can only play at certain times (most often the same time) every day. So that player should just not play that day? And you seem to keep confusing a player's ability to play his character (in whatever state) with a player's ability to play his character AS A SURVIVOR. Two different concepts. I'm talking about the former. You appear to be talking about the latter. Also, I think the whole Ankle Grab/Headshot system is broken and needs to be fixed anyway (yeah, like THAT will ever happen).--Pesatyel 20:56, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Fun is subjective from player to player. No idea is going to appeal to everyone's idea of fun. I would find playing my Zombie more fun if there were actually something to worry about, some sort of risk involved. A game should involve risks. A player should accept the challenge of learning to manage those risks. This might hurt Zombies of the tank variety, who merely rise, run out their AP's in attacks, and log out to do it again the next day. Nothing against their idea of fun, but I think thoughtful play should be rewarded, mechanistic play, less so. If they choose to play a tank that expends all their AP without regard for consequences, then that is that players problem. Even considering that, most players die while they are inactive anyway. A player who only plays for 5 to 20 minutes a day that logs in with low HP is most likely going to make it through their turn without being attacked at all. Especially if they are in a stack of Zombies. A lot of characters who are only active for a few minutes a day are probably just passive resource alts on both sides doing cade lowering/building work anyway. If this were implemented perhaps we would see a lowering of the number of active characters in the game, but I doubt many of them would be real players, but rather frustrated Combat zergers/passive resource alts who found that they couldn't exploit the game system quite as easily as before.

The fact that you must resort to worse case scenarios, a fixation on "logging in at 1 HP" (something that is not going to happen all that often, though you treat it as if it were an automatic given) suggests that you're really reaching here.--Sara M 04:28, 4 August 2007 (BST)

You know, the funny thing is I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. I just think 1 HP is stupid and spammable. Yes, the "logging in at 1 HP" won't happen all the time. But it WILL happen more often then you will admit. And the fact that you have NO CONTROL over that is what makes this spammable. 1 HP may be reaching, yes, but there is a strong possibility of players logging in with but a handful of HP. I may be "assuming" that 1 HP is a "given" but YOU are assuming that players will ONLY die while playing or within a half hour of ending their play for the day and "assuming" that all players have the freedom to just let their characters recharge. I'm trying to explain that THAT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN. My character dies. 24 hours later, he's back at full 50 (and what about Body Building, now that I think about it) HP when I log back on. That's fine. But what about if my character doesn't die for 20 hours? I'd log on with 8 HIT POINTS. Wow. Fun. At 15 hours I'd have 18 hit points. Maneageable. But the longer it takes to die between log ins seriously affects a players ability to actually play ("In game" has nothing to do with it). Imagine logging in and not being able to do anything because, frequently, the moment you do you die. Even Mrh?-Cows can play as zombies (they just don't LIKE to). All this suggestion would do would be to curtail the PLAYER'S ability to play the game, not the CHARACTER'S ability. Low hit points seriously limit a player's options. In the current game, Mrh?-Cows only limit themselves. They CHOOSE to just stand around hope someone will revive them. Or they CHOOSE to go and work for that revive themselves. As I said my ROTTER can get a revive within 3 days and that includes having to get INTO the NT building. How hard it is for a non-rotter who wants one to get one? And DON'T include the Mrh?-Cow stand arounds. If they aren't going to work to get that revive, fuck 'em. Working to GET the revive is part of the game. To be honest, I don't see how this is an improvement since it hurts those trying to get revives more than it does regular zombies, for starters. Even if a revived survivor has only a handful of HP can get healed fast, either doing it themselves or allowing others the XP of healing them. You keep describing how "hard" it is for survivors to play as survivors when they become zombies, which is bullshit, but I'll run with it. It sounds like you want to give zombies an "equivalent" to that "hardship" but this idea doesn't work because you are also including the original group! Those survivors feeling the "hardship" are doubly slammed. Now not only is it hard for them to get revived but it will also take longer because they have fewer hit points on average (and you have to be standing to be revived). As I said I like the idea. I just think your making it TOO HARD on EVERYONE, especially zombies, to play the game. Make death mean something, that's fine. But players who play zombies already have it more difficult to do in game things than players who play survivors. Why do you think there are always fewer "true" zombie players? The stats say 44%, but how many of those are Mrh?-Cows? Fewer people want to play zombies (Mrh-Cows are evidence of that), but players DO play them.

Here is how I see your suggestion working:

• When a character dies or is revived, they start with 12 HP and regenerate 1 HP every half hour. If a player choose to stand their character up they will have whatever HP the character has at the time. So standing immediately after dying means the character will have 12 HP.

OR

• When a character dies or is revived, they start with 2 HP and regenerate 1 HP every half hour. If a player choose to stand their character up they will have whatever HP the character has at the time. So standing immediately after dying means the character will have 2 HP. If the character has Body Building, they can add the +10 HP granted to their starting amount.

Without some minmum amount I don't think the idea will survivor a vote.--Pesatyel 20:56, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Pesatyel has what I was getting at, that WHEN you are killed in the previous day affects how you can play as a zombie. Why do you want to punish people for not playing the game the way you do? - having an extended period in which to play UD. What I find funny is that you compare a live situation for a survivor killing a zombie (zombie stands straight back up) with the non-live situation of a zombie killing a survivor. That's not a fair comparison if you want to end up with a balanced suggestion. In the latter situation, the survivor can run away! (If they don't, that's their own fault for being killed.)
Death should be something that zombies are not afraid of, since they NEVER run away, they never flinch from a punch, they don't understand the concept of death. You say that playing as a zombie is no risk - you want risk, play as a survivors. You want a challenge, play as a zombie.

I just disagree that the recovering of HP over-time is something that should be in the game. Imagine a suburb consisting of survivors that live in the US, and zombies that live in Europe. Both tend to play in the evening, after work/school. So ~5/6 hours after the zombies play, the survivors will be around killing zeds, barricading, etc. The next day, the zombie are rising with ~36 HP. The reverse of that situation is US=zombies, Europe=survivors. So ~5/6 hours after the survivors have done their job, the zombies are rising with ~12 HP. Whether you apply that to large groups, or just individual players, each zombie gets a different start HP based on WHEN their opponents are active during the day, not just WHAT their opponents decide to do. Nothing else is this game directly effects a player's character and day in such a powerful way. 'arm. 05:08, 8 August 2007 (BST)

I bring up the 'live' situation to explain that when such a fight happens, it's always in the best interest of the Survivor to run, even in one on one situations because the Zombie effectively has unlimited hits points, while the Survivor does not. This makes offense unsupportable and forces any smart Survivor into being totally defensive. That is just silly in my mind. In most of the zombie films I love, a lone Zombie is an object to danced around, getting shot with spritzer water or pies in the face. This would encourage Zombies to remain in hordes, where they should be stronger. As a genre concern, it's only when Zombies amass in hordes do they really present a true threat.

Survivors usually only die in non-live situations, which is pretty unfair and boring, and to me anyway, not much of a challenge. Playing my own Zombie is never a challenge, and only kept me interested so I could add new skills. Now that I have all the skills I want or need, it's lost much of its entertainment value. I honestly don't understand how you consider playing a Zombie to be a challenge. Perhaps if I had more focused goals, like attacking a specific group that was determined to stop me or something like that, but I'm pretty indiscriminate, and go after whatever opportunity presents itself, just flowing along with a horde and sometimes jumping into a new horde that happens to come near me.

Not only do Survivors face several turns being taken out of their "fun", but they get killed while they are not even there. Zombies, OTOH, only really die when they choose to, I.E. running out their AP in a building and just standing there, inviting a Headshot that so many complain of. Even then, they don't care because they expect it and it's not a real problem. I don't care to hear criticisms about Mrh Cows, because Zombie players face no such problem within the game. Same with the "fun" argument. It only seems to apply to Zombie player fun, and with no consideration for the fun of the other side. In fact, I don't really understand the Zombie players who complain about Combat Revives or the Headshot AP loss. They are minor annoyances, and the only way Survivors can effect Zombies at this time. What do Zombie players want? Immovable/indestructible objects that only kill and watch humans run from them, almost living in a completely different plane of existence from Survivors? Except when the Zombie player decides it wants to kill a Survivor? As it is, the game may as well be renamed: Zombies vs. The Barricades. The Survivors inside don't mean anything, except as a vehicle to build those cades. I have to think that that was not Kevan's original intention or he would not have provided 8 Major Combat Skills. Somehow those skills have all taken a backseat to Construction. I don't even play a character that uses guns, and it still seems bizarre to me. Because I see so many new players running in circles using them to no point I guess. Still, you can't really reason with a lot of them, because they joined the game to shoot Zombies, not search for Gennies and nail wood up.

The "Survivors can always play as Zombies" argument holds no weight for me either. Sure it would be nice if such duel natured play was supportable, but it's not. A lot of people want to play just Zombies, and others just Survivors. Even if the duel nature thing was wide-spread the game would be quickly over, as there would soon be no Survivors left. Obviously a lot of players don't consider just picking up as a Zombie to be fun, and in fact it's even worse than a Regenerating Zombie would be. So I just disagree that Regenerating would be the most powerful way a player could be effected, because I feel that for Dedicated Survivors there is already something more powerful than that in the game. It's just that it only effects 1 group out of 4 (if you break Survivors/Zombies into 2 groups each, Dedicated and non).

Even in defensive positions Survivors are severely handicapped in the AP efficiency department. Barricades lose out to timed attacks, pretty much every time. Survivors have no offense, weak defense, and if smart are reduced to running constantly. That's pretty boring and so you do see a lot of Survivors "standing their ground" just for something to do, only to be defeated constantly, or off making up some weird "festival" to expend their AP on.

As for Zombies not being afraid. Which is it? Why is it whenever something like this comes up I get either: "Zombies are dead/mindless/don't understand and should not be afraid of anything or be effected by anything", but if it serves the persons argument better I get: "Zombies in UD are unique, smarter than your average Zombie." It seems a lot a people go back and forth on that depending on how much it's helps their argument at the time. If Zombies can communicate intelligently and plan timed attacks down to the minute, then I think they should be considered aware enough to worry about being hurt to the point of getting "killed". I'm not even saying Zombies should be forced to run or hide, but only that when they do die it mean something. I'm not accusing you of making such duel arguments, it's just that I can't help but think of it whenever one or the other is brought up.

I doubt any Suburb is quite so uniform in its player location/playing time to allow the situation you describe above about time zones. If a Zombie logs in with low HP, well there is a challenge for you. It's better than logging in as a Survivor to find yourself dead and with lots of wasted AP's and downtime ahead of you. For all Zombies, Dedicated or not playing is quick and cheap. For duel natured Survivors as well. Only Dedicated Survivors face the exact thing you complain would happen, only worse, if Zombies did have to face low AP at times. Logging in to find that they aren't really going to be playing that day, or probably the next, is worse than just regenerating HP, in my opinion.

UD has a lot of potential. I just think the changes have made it less of a game, than a glorified social club though. If that's what the majority of the players want, then so be it. But many of the things that Zombies complained of in their "On Strike" campaign have become true for Survivors with the changes. Survivors are now the punching bags. I just don't get much satisfaction out of playing my Zombie, as it's all log in, kill several Survivors, log out. Doesn't matter what happens to me in the interim because I have effectively unlimited HP and quick and cheap ways to basically completely ignore Death/Combat Revive. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Where's the challenge? Barricades? Only if you are unwise enough to travel alone.

The LUE horde has done more to expose the flaws in the current system than anything, being able to brush aside Survivors like nothing even when the Zombies are outnumbered 2 to 1. But what they do is just an extreme example of the disparity that exists in the game anyway. They just exploit it better than anyone else does. There's nothing all that amazing about it. Just do the math, and you come up with the same result every time. Zombies are just much more efficient, in almost all aspects that matter. Especially when you figure timed attacks in. As I've said before, I think this disparity is holding the game back and if it were to be removed we could see some very interesting new skills/options for Zombies to compensate for their new HP concerns. Also, I don't want to punish anyone for not playing as I do, though I play both sides(though with separate characters). My concern is that Dedicated Survivor characters are already punished for playing the way they do. This idea just attempts to even that out. It could go the other way and try to remove the punishment factor all together, like the above Inoculation idea attempts to do. I just thought that evening it out is more conducive to the "slow game play" guideline than removing it all together.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong. --Sara M 12:40, 8 August 2007 (BST)

Your forgetting a facet of the game. the ?Rise feature REPRESENTS that "horde" idea. That there are "nigh-unlimited" zombies infesting Malton. While Urban Dead zombies follow the "standard" zombie format, they are NOT "standard" zombies. Even with out the ability to ?Rise. That comparison only go so far. Also, which "standard" zombies are we talking about? It could be argued that higher level UD zombies are like "LOTD" zombies or "ROTLD" zombies (while the lower levels are like "Night" or "Dawn" zombies). Also, in most zombie movies either there is a finite supply of zombies and the "main" characters survive OR survivors ALL die or are forced to run.

You also keep forgetting another important facet of the game. Survivors are SUPPOSED to ACTUALLY try surviving. Nerfing zombies to make that "easier" is not the way to go.

Zombies are more of a challenge because you have to meta-game, for one thing. Survivors have multiple-modes of in game communication and movement. Survivors also have multiple ways to get XP and can level, generally, faster (depending on skill selection) from level 1.

Your also talking MAXED characters. I won't make (another) assumption about whether or not you've played a zombie, but I'll ask if that zombie "started" as one (as opposed to using survivor XP to buy zombie skills).

I'm not disagreeing with your your suggestion idea (which I notice you keep ignoring). I just think its a pretty big nerf.

Want to play JUST as a survivor? DON'T FUCKING DIE! Why do you keep ignoring that aspect? The argument about survivors playing as zombies is in relation to Mrh?-Cows. Survivors CHOOSE to just stand around, PASSIVELY, hoping and waiting for someone to revive them. If that's how they want to play because they don't want to be zombies, fine. Fuck 'em. "Playing" as a zombie means ACTIVELY trying to get that revive. As I said, my ROTTER can get a revive within 3 days (that's the longest I've ever had to "wait" when actively trying). Imagine how much easier it would be for a non-Rotter. If a "dedicated" survivor is not having fun by being a Mrh?-Cow, that's their own fault/problem.

Timed attacks? Yeah, of course. Otherwise survivors have are MORE EFFICIENT with barricades. It takes roughly ONE AP for a survivor to build a barricade level for each THREE TO FOUR AP spent by a zombie to break it down. Not to mention it's an AUTOMATIC level.

WTF? Now your using MY argument to support your own? Logging in to find that they aren't really going to be playing that day, or probably the next, is worse than just regenerating HP, in my opinion. What makes this idea WORSE is that hits survivors TWICE AS HARD as it does zombies (something ELSE your ignoring).

As I said above, zombies follow the "standard" zombie format but are NOT "standard" zombies. UD zombies are allowed to time attacks because this is a GAME. And in this GAME zombies are controlled by people. The artificial limitations placed on zombie characters are intended to make those characters more "standard" like but, unless the players behind the zombies all have the mental power of a chipmunk, you will not be able to make them FULLY "standard" zombies without making them NPCs/bots.

Yes, I think maybe it SHOULD "mean something" when a zombie dies. But this suggestion hurts the PLAYERS more than the CHARACTERS.

And that, as you describe is part of the challenge of playing a zombie. The repetiveness. Survivors can sit around and chat or use radios or search or read books or loot art, etc. Zombies can attack and flail. That's it. The "challenge" of playing a zombie is rising in levels. Level 1 zombies are pathetic and the challenge is making them un-pathetic.

You said, above, that most "dedicated" zombie players factor in headshots, expecting them. That's true. But your "dedicated" survivor players are apparently to pathetic to do the same. As I said above, don't die. "Dedicated" survivors should already be trying to do that and it isn't that hard. Here is the #1 rule: Don't sleep in malls/NTs. In the same way that "prepare" for headshots, survivors can "prepare" for occasionally dying. Is your survivor part of a group? Then it shouldn't be that hard to get a revive, should it? Most "dedicated" survivor players are either PKers or don't take the game "seriously". As in doing everything they can to survive. Why bother? They can just get revived.

It seems your main "complaint" and reason for the suggestion is that zombies are always forced to flee (or die) in practically every encounter. That they will never be able to really hold territory. You also cite zombie movies to support your argument. But in most zombie movies, either the survivors "win" by killing all the zombies (because there are only a few) or, as UD represents, in a "real" zombie apocalypse, the survivors all either die or are forced to flee. But UD is NOT a zombie movie. In zombie movies the threat of death of a survivor is REAL. There are no revives. When you die you become the enemy permanently. Applying that to UD means all those "dedicated" survivor players would either immediately quit or quit after not much longer because they can't stay survivor. Another example is "Dawn of the Dead" (especially the remake). Yes they were perfectly safe in the mall and it was only their desire to be somewhere else that got them to leave (they didn't want to die there). That's not a factor in UD either. Unless Kevan adds something, characters will NEVER die unless killed. And, unlike Dawn, the malls are NOT impentrable fortresses. And not even because of zombies breaking barricades. Free Running. It could be argued they did it in "Dawn" but look how difficult that was?--Pesatyel 05:05, 9 August 2007 (BST)

I had prepared a longer answer to this, but in the end I decided that this Discussion has had enough of that. In short though, I don't think I'm forgetting any facet of the game, I'm actually arguing to change facets of the game. I understand that this would make it harder for Survivors as well as Zombies, but I thought I made it clear that what I was more interested in was the TIME factor. ?rise I don't see as an intentional part of the game, but rather, a technical trick. I understand that this isn't "fixing the crowbar" or "interesting color" or some minor suggestion like that. I think you're arguing from a preserve the status quo position, while I'm more iconoclastic in my view of the game. Guidelines are fine, but the downside is that people can sometimes get narrow in their view of things after awhile, and I think you see that in the over-use of Spam/Dupe votes as a knee-jerk reaction, rather than really looking at what is being presented.

Just to answer some of your more direct questions:

1.Both of my Zombies started as Corpses, and I bought Brain Rot as my first purchase just because I wanted the "Zombie experience" without the interruption of Combat Revives.

2.My main Survivor has never died, so yes I understand it's not all that hard to stay alive. It's just a bit dull after awhile, and some sort of proactive/offensive options would be nice. I have intentionally killed my alt Survivor several times so I could experience the whole Revive process however.

Oh and I only mentioned movie concerns in one sentence, man! As an almost throwaway reference. I think you sort of over-responded to that. :P --Sara M 12:08, 11 August 2007 (BST)

Maybe. But you STILL haven't responded to any of my actual thoughts on the suggestion. We keep "arguing" about all the pointless crap.--Pesatyel 09:15, 12 August 2007 (BST)

---