|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 1, 2008 17:04:54 GMT -5
I think I agree, for the most part
|
|
|
Post by Redwave on Feb 1, 2008 19:51:38 GMT -5
I think that's the main problem I have with the update. Siege warfare was my favorite part of the game. Now the megahordes pretty much have the keys to all the malls, and stuff like Angerstien is going to be harder than ever to pull off.
Maybe I just need to think more like a samauri...
|
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Feb 2, 2008 1:48:37 GMT -5
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* Oh I wouldn't say that at all, you still have a large numbers advantage, even in those types of situations, the reason Giddings fell wasn't because survivors weren't online it was because zombies focused on the weakest corner of the mall, before the last day of Giddings standing survivors were having no trouble when it was 20(Survivors) actives vs 70(zombies). Assuming the need to watch all the time also assumes that you need to have it split up evenly, that's just not true, it's pretty obvious with bigger hordes when the big attacks will be coming and the rest of it is just fighting off ferals, something one or five people logging on every hour can do with ease, once you find out, roughly, when the other people are active you get a big advantage. Also, the revives thing, remember that since zombies don't make 30-40 man strikes every hour and since every kill is one less active zombie it's not actually that much of a disadvantage, you'll frequently have more than enough time between attacks, the problem is the logistics involved, how many people are reviving, etc. and has absolutely nothing to do with zombies, the same is not true for zombies inside and how effective they can be. Syringes are a tempo weapon, FAKs are a tempo weapon, barricades are a tempo weapon, and what they do is make you able to defend against more people with less, the issue is figuring out the best way to use them and which to use in the situation you're in.
|
|
|
Post by asshole doctor™ on Feb 2, 2008 2:29:34 GMT -5
as always sage advice. i love when ever there's an update it' seems like to me. you come on here and help come up with tactics to defend against them. just to make game play better and interesting for all. you are a true gentleman and i tip my hat to you sir.
|
|
|
Post by blue tigers on Feb 2, 2008 10:37:43 GMT -5
Some free advice for zombie besiegers.
Zombies only need to move inside somewhere around 20-40 bodies and keep ?rise. In one or two days, all their friends will join up inside. This can be easily arranged by one or two strike teams that set an attack time via private communication. There is nothing survivors can do to prevent that short of organizing around the clock as Padre is suggesting. Once the initial zombie pack is in, the bets are off; survivors can't clear them quick enough, as the Giddings fall proves. Please remember that one sees all corners of the mall, thus the shooting reinforcements come from all the mall, not just from the 'weakest' corner. It just happened that the rate of zombies coming in was greater than the rate of zombies headshotted and shown the exit (7AP to ?rise+enter vs 30-40AP to reload+kill+dump).
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 2, 2008 10:47:58 GMT -5
i'm not sure there's NOTHING we can do, but it's going to be very difficult. I'm just sick of all the zombies yowling about how disorganized we are, there's a grain of truth to it, but organizing survivors, as I think I've proved in this thread, is a lot harder and less fruitful than organizing zombies.
At any rate, Vecusum points out one major thing that I've been considering for some time, and that is have a roster for sieges where we keep track of how many people are 'cading, reviving, shooting, and healing...something like this might help us tweak the proportions until we figure out how it's done.
But in the long run, I think what this will mean is that we'll have to play to the smaller buildings and not get wound up in big sieges...which is sad.
It may have little to no effect at all, it's just too early to tell. Do me a favor and swing by the "Conclusions" sections of the siege of giddings wiki page...personally, I think it might be a teeny weeny bit biased...
|
|
|
Post by blue tigers on Feb 2, 2008 11:33:24 GMT -5
It may have little to no effect at all, it's just too early to tell. Do me a favor and swing by the "Conclusions" sections of the siege of giddings wiki page...personally, I think it might be a teeny weeny bit biased... Let me guess... Surviors are stupid and selfish? Zombies are paragons of intelligence and coordination? Edit: Lol. Guess I was right.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 2, 2008 11:36:00 GMT -5
not quite... it's not like, Fox news biased, I just think it's a bit slanted...they've got every right to do that in the article (the news team has done FAR worse), but when you're drawing conclusions like "This battle has debunked dam tactics" and "Combat revives are no longer a smart tactic", you need to consider your point of view
|
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Feb 2, 2008 12:31:10 GMT -5
Yeah, ignore that article. Four days ago it was claiming that survivors had won the siege hands down and that zombies obviously had no idea what they were doing, etc. It's a stellar example of everything that shouldn't be done in a wiki article.
As for strike teams, 20-40 may not seem like a lot when you recently fought against those Big Bash(those freakish 60-70 zombie monstrosities) strikes but a strike team of 5-10 is more average with 15-20 being a high end strike.
|
|
|
Post by Redwave on Feb 2, 2008 13:53:06 GMT -5
I suppose if your going to be biased you should go way over the top. The Battle of the Bear Pit makes some for great reading, but it's also so biased it causes Zeds to roll in their graves.
That Pitneybank wiki article could be salvaged though. Needs more shopped pictures and chest beating...
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Feb 2, 2008 18:40:32 GMT -5
And it needs a picture of my glorious charge into the fray, after most people were dead.
|
|
|
Post by falco94 on Feb 3, 2008 1:05:57 GMT -5
but when you're drawing conclusions like "Combat revives are no longer a smart tactic", you need to consider your point of view Since when was combat reviving a smart thing to do?
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 3, 2008 1:13:44 GMT -5
well, I won't start a raging contoversy here good friend, but lets say there are situations when it's a good idea...albiet, rare situations, but they're still out there
|
|
|
Post by Ron Burgundy on Feb 3, 2008 1:37:06 GMT -5
The Battle of the Bear Pit wiki article was not biased in any way! It was handed down to me by God himself and I recorded it verbatim.
|
|
|
Post by Padre Romero on Feb 3, 2008 1:52:32 GMT -5
Ron is right in this reguard, I was there when it happened God looks a lot like ron actually, I think there's some relation there
|
|