|
Post by Padre Romero on Jan 31, 2008 23:58:31 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. I'd like to point out that from a strategy perspective, organizing 300 survivors is much harder, and less effective, than 300 zombies, particularly over short spans of time...this is a stragegic concern called "Tempo" which is often overlooked in games like this, to simplify: you have a major edge: you pick when you'd like to move, we have to react to your choice. Chess masters and checkers players would sooner sacrifice their best piece than fall behind in tempo...in urban dead, it's the survivors default state, and that will probably never change. As an example, if you've got 300 survivors and 300 zombies, doing their thing inside and outside of a 1 square building, the zombies have tempo, in that they can pick the time they wish to strike, and in the span of 15 minutes, do everything they need to do. Survivors, on the other hand, need to be active ALL the time, this is why survivors have such a massive barricade edge...this is also one of the most often adressed issues in game theory, also known as the thief problem or the towel problem, for reasons I'll explain if you'd like. Please also keep in mind the fact that zombies, being dead and highly mobile, oranize when and where they want without any concern for the safety of the area or how many of their number are currently dead, no long term planning is needed to coordinate after a crushing defeat...in fact, all that need be done is one quick click at the bottom of the screen, and you're back in business. Organizing 300 survivors for a 15 minute period doesn't do very much, besides the occasional building retake. Once you're defending your necrotech building, you don't NEED to mobilize numbers like this, unless you want to implement a shift system...anyone who lets this game have THAT kind of regemented control over there life should probably re-examine their priorites. Once the (inevitable) defeat occurs, it takes a good day and a half to recover an appreciable fraction of your survivors...assuming there's an NT in the area that will have you I'm not saying you fellows have some broken edge over survivors, but I am saying we're more even than you think
|
|
|
Post by Sexy Rexy Grossman on Feb 1, 2008 0:56:10 GMT -5
Thank you, Padre.
Planning an acceptable party for you zombies is getting harder and harder.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Wulfgar on Feb 1, 2008 1:26:15 GMT -5
Indeed.
Very well put Padre.
|
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Feb 1, 2008 8:14:22 GMT -5
Differences in the system, but I wouldn't say it's much harder, it'd actually probably be easier to get more people on at different times of the day, organization wise it's just more convenient for people. I'll also say that tempo is also a concern for zombies, but, since survivors have a much better time when playing based on tempo(their abilities are mostly geared towards playing in spurts) instead of based on aggressiveness it's often ignored or not used in favor of the more aggressive and faster approach.
I doubt it can really be argued though that strategy and large scale coordination of survivors has been done in any real degree for a while, there are moments but, from what I've seen, it seems to be a very separatist and exclusive community with each group minding their own business until many of them agree that a group of zombies has done too much and decide to act. And even then it's usually a series of defeats and a few very tenacious groups following along(until so many of these groups are in one place at one time) that eventually lead to any real turn in the tides. At least that's my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 1, 2008 8:26:11 GMT -5
Differences in the system, but I wouldn't say it's much harder, it'd actually probably be easier to get more people on at different times of the day, organization wise it's just more convenient for people. Not quite remember, for this to be effective they'd need to watch ALL the time, to counteract that 300-in-one-go sweep...that means you need to divvy up your 300 survivors through every hour of the day, in fact, if someone doesn't log in every five minutes or so, the whole system becomes pointless, because zombies could very easily slip in between the "Gaps" this creates, and (especially in the new system) once the 'cades come down, the zombies are in, and then a good portion of your survivors BETTER be online. Of course, lest we forget, survivors material disadvantage (In this case, that would be the ability to die), means that seige defenders, possibly they guy who's shift is up next, can get taken down and then made inneffective...everytime someone dies, you have to re-structure the system. If all 300 zombies getting ready to strike at X:00 GMT are mysteriously gunned down an hour beforehand, that just means they're out 6 AP each...no small potatoes, but (again) we must consider tempo: the 10th of a second it takes to stand versus the (Perhaps) half hour to get revived* *(I am, of course, being exceptionally generous here...especially in the full swing of sieges, it can take a lot longer than this.)
|
|
|
Post by Bob Beetlebum on Feb 1, 2008 9:55:01 GMT -5
There's an interesting section on the wiki that deals with suggestions which are "viewed as game-breaking, or seen as completely upsetting the balance of power between survivors and the undead", and therefore should be avoided. I guessed Kevan hasn't read it. Zeds are geared to attack, and Survivors to defense, and our most important ability has just been nerfed.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 1, 2008 10:15:01 GMT -5
There's an interesting section on the wiki that deals with suggestions which are "viewed as game-breaking, or seen as completely upsetting the balance of power between survivors and the undead", and therefore should be avoided. I guessed Kevan hasn't read it. Zeds are geared to attack, and Survivors to defense, and our most important ability has just been nerfed. well bob, that all depends on what you mean by "geared". People can wave their hands around and mumble about river tactis, and indeed, if the objective of a survivor is to physically stay alive for as long as possible, we may in fact be "geared" for rapid flight. The problem is that all players, zombies and humans included, do not view "victory" or "accomplishment" by these criterion*, and our illustrious game designer knows this. The objective in any siege situation is, and always has been, "Holding out for as long as possible". Now, we took a major nerf here, but I personally (and perhaps i'm the only survivor) think it needed to be done, if for no other reason than the zombies SHOULD have the upper hand in a city like malton. I like excitement, I like waking up in the morning before I go to class and logging in, anxious to discover wether or not I died in my sleep. I especially like Blackmore-1 type sieges where survivors succeed based solely on our effing-awsome class...dispite terrible odds and very pissed off zombies *(As an example, who "won" at giddings? who would have "won" if everyone except the 15 people who didn't know the bash had shown up fled in the first 10 minutes?)
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Feb 1, 2008 10:17:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zokolate on Feb 1, 2008 10:55:56 GMT -5
suggestion of maths =
100 zeds in mall. if not using rise, needs 50 survivors to kill, if each can kill 2. 1 day of searching yields maybe enough ammo to kill 2 zeds. to kill 100 zeds everyday, we need 100 survivors alternating between search & shoot. if all zeds "rise" once on average, we need 200 survivors to kill "200" zeds. if all zeds "rise" twice on average, we need 300 survivors & so on. "rise" is easier due to blocking of barricades, just walk in again.
assume zeds spend break 1 level barricade in 4AP. if each zed spends 20AP on average breaking down barricades, 5 levels lost. other zed AP spent destroying gen's, biting people, moving around. 100 zeds break down 500 levels. to re-barricade, zeds block so maybe 4 to 8 AP for 1 level. if 4AP per level, about 40 survivor's AP to make up 2000AP to re-barricade.
need 10AP to find generator, 16AP to find fuel can. assume destruction once/hr 624 AP to maintain generator, 13 survivor AP searching everyday. add 2 for movement.
to fight 100 zeds who rise twice on average daily, need 300 + 40 to 80 + 15 about 400 dedicated defenders. in a siege, maybe only half are dedicated to above tasks? rest are trenchies who shoot zeds, pkers, revivers, healers, spammers, tourists.
does this mean we need 800 survivors in a mall to fight 100 co-ordinated zeds?
|
|
|
Post by blue tigers on Feb 1, 2008 11:07:19 GMT -5
Now, we took a major nerf here, but I personally (and perhaps i'm the only survivor) think it needed to be done, if for no other reason than the zombies SHOULD have the upper hand in a city like malton. I like excitement, I like waking up in the morning before I go to class and logging in, anxious to discover wether or not I died in my sleep. I'm not sure I follow. To paraphrase another popular video game, suppose you're stuck with pistol and shotgun, while the opponent has access to higher level goodies like rocket launcher or shaft gun. Yeah, you'll be able to nail your opponent a number of times by employing advanced strategies, but he will be wiping the floor with you most of the time. How long do you think it's going to be fun to fight against stacked odds? Did you noticed that skill for skill zombies have the upper edge? In the end, Malton is a numbers game. Whom who gets more friends in the fight, wins, for the current definition of 'wins' which is hold/gain ground. That's what kept the social aspect of the game active. At this point, survivors need to gather 3-5 times more friends to have a chance, I don't see how that's going to happen. As a result, the survivor community will splinter even further, as there is no point left in joining forces with other survivors.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Beetlebum on Feb 1, 2008 11:18:25 GMT -5
But Padre, the zombies already have the upper hand. The Bash went through suburb after suburb, mall after mall barely breaking step. It took a 3:1 numerical advantage to stop them. After this update "as long as possible" could be measured in hours rather than days.
Survivors need to believe they can win a siege, once in a while. I no longer believe so.
As for the running thing, I did that for a while, but in the end running has no purpose, no sense of accomplishment.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 1, 2008 12:10:23 GMT -5
well founded points, and I think we'll have to see how it pans out it may be that this ability is far too strong, but I think not, we WILL have to implement some sort of timing system, as a means of launching efficient and unanimous insta-clears of buildings...similar to the For-Fun charges me and dickhole guy organized in the sieges of the blackmore building. As I mentioned earlier, this puts us at an incredible disadvantage because there are real repercussions if our timing is off...if you're a zombie, you can just try again...and again...and again...until you get it right...with us, every time they break in it's either do it right, or pay*.
But I don't think you'll see the wholesale destruction of malton...we shall see
Here's something to keep in mind, as depressing as it is: the game requires both zombies and humans to play, and it requires both sides to believe they're worth playing. As such, even if zombies have an obscene advantage (like the 2-3 I've pointed out that no one seems to notice) if players THINK they suck, or aren't as fun, they won't be playing them, regardless of how "good" they are. Kevan NEEDS to make zombies not only good, but appear good to players...this means that, from time to time, you might get a huge imbalance to one side or the other...particularly when one side has a large number of players that are Bored/Confused/Demoralized/Stupid/mad at the game designer
* forgot to mention this other key advantage of zombies, you can ALWAYS try again in 24 hours
|
|
|
Post by thekooks on Feb 1, 2008 12:58:11 GMT -5
You do realise there are twenty malls in the game Bob, you do realise that there is more to malton than the Big Bash. Sure it may be the biggest seige, but what about the battle for the Haslock building, or the battle over Rocliffe, or the battle over Yagoton or the battle for Ackland, or the battle for Danversbank which are going on right now.
Zombies are obviously going to win the mega huge seiges, but that doesn't mean they are "overpowered" or have the "upper hand" it means they are really good at mega big seiges.
Zombies still get screwed in the day to day lives in Malton.
Try playing a zombies in 80 out of the 100 suburbs and I can assure you it would suck, it is just burb after burb of barricaded lit buildings.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Beetlebum on Feb 1, 2008 13:40:48 GMT -5
I agree that Kevan needs to make zombies more attractive to play, but I think this is the wrong approach.
Some people have both survivor and zombie alts (I do), and some only want to play human, just like some people want to play "the Cowboy" and never "the Indian". It has nothing to do with how easy it is to play a class, or how powerful you make. It just is the way people think of their character as an extension of themselves.
If enough survivors get demoralized, they'll quit the game - and that will balance the human-zombie numbers, but I don't think that's what Kevan would want.
thekooks: I wasn't at most of the places you mentioned, but my zed alt was at Blackmore - that was 100 v 100, and after days of holding out, it fell within a day of the update. We won't know how lower numbers will pan out for a while, but I'm not too optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by thekooks on Feb 1, 2008 13:47:33 GMT -5
Actually I agree, I wrote that basing it on Malton pre update. I have no idea what will happen now with this update.
|
|