|
Post by gregory on Jan 25, 2008 3:43:48 GMT -5
I dunno. I'm fairly impressed with the effectiveness of the blocking ability, so far. We went from rather easily holding off a 100+ mob of zombies at the Blackmore with about 125 very organized and disciplined survivors (mall rats and PKers don't usually follow you into Ridleybank, because both prefer safer environments), and 24 hours later, we are fighting for our lives (and trying to adjust our tactics to deal with the new rules) with a dozen zombies inside. We lost about 10% of our defenders in the first 24 hours after the change. I'm sure we'll wrap our heads around the new best way of fighting zombies, but I'm not convinced that we'll do it in time to save the Blackmore.
Ruin was pretty annoying, but that was mostly because toolboxes are so damned heavy. For experienced and properly equipped survivors, a ruined building isn't significantly more difficult to repair than a ransacked one, and even on free run lanes, it only added 1 AP to our runs (boo frickin' hoo). The falling out of ruined buildings thing is a minor irritation (except in overbarricaded areas with no open blocks). And I'm kind of looking forward to getting killed so I can see the cool new version of Scent Death. The old version always struck me as completely worthless (though I can see where the "sense other members of your group" add-on might have come in handy occasionally).
But the barricade blocking is really throwing a wrench into current survivor tactics. If anyone comes up with a way to cope with it, I'd love to hear it. Some have suggested distributed defense - but someone always does after an update, and I've never seen it really catch on.
|
|
|
Post by Magatsu Taito on Jan 25, 2008 7:04:28 GMT -5
The new scent death is indeed quite nice, it's much cooler than NT-scans at least.
|
|
|
Post by Tight Rope on Jan 25, 2008 10:26:12 GMT -5
Ya. I was pretty panicky at first, and was proved wrong. We've still been able to hold them off. The rule change makes it harder, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. We can still win this siege, but I don't think it's not a sure thing anymore. I'm curious how this will effect small battles of 10 vs 10, and I guess I'll find out someday after this siege. This is ruin all over again. Panic, and then nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Burgundy on Jan 25, 2008 13:03:28 GMT -5
What?! How have I missed this? That's a lot of people in Blackmore. I guess our legacy lives on! Glad to hear it!
|
|
|
Post by blanemcc on Jan 25, 2008 13:13:06 GMT -5
You've not heard ?
Im making a speech tonight, just for the hell of it.
I think TNR will be moving on in a week or so, this siege just lacks... you know, that vibe.
Eastonwood seems like a good place to go
|
|
|
Post by gregory on Jan 26, 2008 0:01:18 GMT -5
What?! How have I missed this? That's a lot of people in Blackmore. I guess our legacy lives on! Glad to hear it! Oh yeah. We had most of Greater Blackmore (well, Ridleybank) lit up and EHB for a few days around the time GC had their little pirate reunion. Only a handful of those present still identify as BBB, but we've had a lot of great survivor groups show up and make this siege possible. It's been a great time. Numbers in the Blackmore are still falling, but I'm not seeing a lot of survivors being dragged into the street or killed, so I suspect there's a lot of folks taking cover in surrounding buildings or getting ammo to deal with the zombies inside. Zombie numbers inside have remained pretty much static for the last 24 hours. We're adjusting our tactics, and though things are still pretty chaotic, I don't see a massive fleeing to the hills by survivors inside. Sure, we're basically forced to be trenchcoaters just to hold the Blackmore, but so far, we appear to be holding it. A lot of the surrounding buildings are ruined, though, so I won't pretend we haven't lost some ground versus a week ago. The rule change has been a nasty surprise, but it hasn't spelled immediate and certain defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Tovarisch Khrushchev on Jan 26, 2008 3:57:41 GMT -5
Only a handful still shouldn't be carrying the flag of the BBB, since we're a retired bunch. I believe you all were designated the Bastard Sons of the Blackmore Bastard Brigade...so, thats more like, BSBBB.
Oh well, fight the good fight and what not. I need a drink.
|
|
|
Post by Sexy Rexy Grossman on Jan 30, 2008 17:21:48 GMT -5
So the Bash horde adapted. The got an additional 100-150 zombies in the area, which pushed the survivor to zombie ratio closer to 2:1. They also used some new techniques to help expend survivor AP:
* multiple ?rises and re-entries to help maintain inside lurching dominance & to waste survivor's AP on kill/dump * strike teams that enter through one corner of a mall, head to another corner and attack the barricades from the inside. This allows a new avenue of attack with survivors having lurching cade blocking on a second quad.
I'm not for sure how we can counter this, whether in a big Bash-level siege or in medium 40+ zed level sieges. Would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Honestly, I don't want the revival of River Tactics. Currently, here's my thoughts, which all involve "Survivors Getting More Organized" -- something I'm unsure is possible:
* Eat From My Flesh and Be Satisfied - Only way we can get zeds to AP out is to waste their AP on meat cades. A 20% chance for a successful barricade when 10+ zombies are inside is a massive waste of survivor AP. Killed and dumped zeds just ?rise and re-enter the building. If a building is worth protecting, it needs lots of meat. * Active Heal, plz -- 1 AP of healed survivor negates ~3 AP successful claw attacks, ~2 AP successful bite attacks, and any other unsuccessful attacks. Plus it keeps whoever is getting attacked alive for him/her to use his AP. This is MORE IMPORTANT than active cading. * Counter-Strike -- Kill/Dump duties should be at the very least X:00 tactics, at the best strictly organized into 2 alternating-day/time strike teams. Objective is to kill/dump as many zeds as possible to get the number inside < X. (I'm assuming < 10 means cade blocking attempts get better -- that's unconfirmed currently. So X would be the appropriate number of zeds inside that wouldn't explicitly hinder barricading. My guess is 5.) * Cade Fury! -- Once the zeds are reduced to X, EVERYBODY CADE UP! (This will be the ultimate responsibility of the strike force.) Now the cades are back up and the remaining zeds are kill/dumped by whoever.
If we wanted to apply this theory in a "Siege Mantra" type of statement for the "I login once a day and spend my AP in 10 minutes" player, it would be Heal, Kill/Dump, Cade. Although I wonder if it should be "Heal, Cade for 10AP, Kill/Dump, Cade Rest of Way". 10AP of cading throws roughly 2 barricade levels on the pile, which will force the quickly dumped ?risers to throw an AP or 2 tearing down the cades.
Your thoughts?
|
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Jan 30, 2008 19:52:03 GMT -5
Ooh Rexy, I like it when you talk slaughter.
Yay! For updates!
|
|
|
Post by Magatsu Taito on Jan 31, 2008 7:56:16 GMT -5
This ?rise thing is quite unfair if you ask me. But this sounds like a good idea, I'm kinda tired of playing dedicated medic, but I guess I'll be needed in the future...
|
|
|
Post by blue tigers on Jan 31, 2008 11:41:58 GMT -5
This ?rise thing is quite unfair if you ask me. The ?rise thing is broken. There is nothing survivors can do now to clean-up a building, unless they have a 5:1 numerical advantage. Headshot -> two hours of no action; come back tomorrow for your brunchies. But I see K. does not want fair fights, he want fights in which one side has a 5:1 advantage. Remember, even before this genius change, odds of 2:1 were easy to overcome with a modicum of organization, see Shack/Lue. I'm 'Rivering' out of this game until we get a fair fight chance.
|
|
|
Post by thekooks on Jan 31, 2008 12:28:27 GMT -5
To counter ?rise just use ?dump exactly as zombies use ?rise - are you fucking joking? When you get three hundered zombies online in the space of fifteen minutes that is not modicum organi sation (bloody cousins ). And you know what, when you have 300 zombies, even 100 zombies at the online, fighting at the same time I think it is realistic, and fair that the zombies should "win". Zombies took down a mall. That is what they are supposed to do, you know...kill survivors. The problem is survivors were not co-ordinating anywhere near enough as the zombies. As soon as you get a human group with really great co-ordination they usually win. Look at the Lime Brigade at stickling, they stopped the third largest horde ever assembled for over a month. Look at Sexy and friends at Dowdney, they stopped the combined efforts of some really really organised zombies completely. The game is not imbalanced in favour of zombies, the fact is that zombies get so screwed over in the game that two years ago they learnt they had to co-ordinate to get anything done. It is about fucking time the harmanz have to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by blue tigers on Jan 31, 2008 22:21:03 GMT -5
"That is what they are supposed to do, you know...kill survivors" Enjoy having wildly skewed odds of winning. 'Cause that's what you are suppose to do, stack the deck so that you alway win. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause I'm not sure how long your fellow players that happened to join the wrong team will put up with it.
By the way, forget about how much better organized and smarter and better smelling zombies are. Useful skill for useful skill, individual zombies currently have better versions than individual survivors.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Moloch on Jan 31, 2008 22:27:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blue tigers on Jan 31, 2008 22:45:08 GMT -5
|
|