Response to Latest Update: Ranting and Rational

[Elusive]

Having survived the first real attack since the latest update I have this to say:

F*cking G*d*mn Kevan you f*cking came down here and your F*cking precious G*d*mn zombies couldn't f*cking break our f*cking 'Cades so you f*cking went and changed the f*cking rules, you f*cking pussy, GUESS WHAT!  I WILL STILL OUT F*CKING 'CADE YOUR F*CKING @SSES!!


Oh my, excuse me.  Now that that's out of my system, let's talk rationally.  I am fairly perturbed by this rules change.  At first I was willing to see how it played out and it made some sense.  However, I do have a problem, from a philosophical standpoint.  It is already impossible for survivors to beat a zed mob except from a technical standpoint.  Zeds win when they munch a majority of the Harmans and the rest run.  Survivors only win if the zeds get bored and go away.  So the game is already unbalanced, albeit in a way that fits the nature of the genre.  All well and good, it is acceptable.  However, the new ruling pushes the difficulty survivors face in defending against hordes to a point where the risk is that the game will stop being fun for survivors.  Also, whatever defense Kevan will have, the timing of the update will always be questionable.  Yes, for BB2 to continue something had to change, it had stalled out and even survivors were complaining of boredom.  In this light, the Defenders of Giddings and Morrish and indeed the survivors of all of Malton are entirely justified in claiming unquestionable victory over the Big Bash 2.  If it requires a rule change to jump start the zed offensive, the battle was already over.  However this siege ends, and that is still undecided whatever this update's effects are, the defense of Pitneybank should go down in history as a glorious victory for survivors.  As for the worth of the update, two bonuses for Zeds, one negative for survivors means three strikes against survivors.  I understand that the genre demands Zombies win, but is it really a good thing if all the survivors throw up their hands in disgust and walk away from the game or convert to Zed players?  Of course not.  Nor do I think this is where Kevan is trying to take this.  All the changes do make sense by themselves, it is all three taken together combined with the timing and the current state of the siege in Pitneybank that should cause an outcry.  And while out 'cading is still quite possible, I would suggest that more time and care in planning updates be taken (even above the amount I am sure did go into this).  Urban Dead is a great game, and the only MMO I've ever kept interest in, and I don't even like the Zombie genre.  Kevan, in making this, has shown his skill at crafting an excellent game, but the questions will remain about this update, and ought to be taken into consideration in the planning of future updates.


Elusive
IC:  Matthew "Red" Patton

[Alex the red]

As a survivor currently guarding Giddings Mall I disagree with you.

although this update can be seen as 1 step in the wrong direction by making things tougher for survivors,

I see it as a dozen steps in the right direction.



We're living in a zombie apocalypse!! Life's supposed to be tough, if it wasn't then I'd get bored and leave the game.

It makes the game more realistic and it makes things more challenging.

Personally I think this game should be more like Dawn of the Dead, where the barricades are pretty much impenetrable, but once they're down every things lost.


And really, if you really want to complain about the update why don't you suggest something to balance things out?

Like making barricades stronger? or guns more powerful?

[Elusive]

Hmmm . . .  Perhaps the first three or four lines threw people off.  Let me quote something I said later on.

<quote=Elusive> All the changes do make sense by themselves</quote>

While I don't see where you get a dozen steps out of it.  I don't see the changes as bad in and of themselves.  I do agree with them, especially taking damage from falling.  I was surprised that wasn't already in there.  But I agree that the updates will make the game better.  But if the immediate effect is to shift the balance in Pitneybank, then the update is bad because it was released at the wrong time.  If the Zed's break Giddings they can't claim true victory because Kevan changed the rules so they could win.  Whether this is true or not is irrelevant.  It appears to be so.

I was not trying to complain about the update.  I started the post bcs I was angry and wanted to vent.  And actually I was more angry about missing zombies multiple times with the shotgun than troubles cading, but I felt some things needed to be said about the update both pro and con as well and so I tried to turn it around to a rational and reasonable post.  Apparently I failed.  I apologize for this.

I question whether or not it makes the game more realistic or not, but that's more from the fact that I think if the zombie genre was realistic it would be boring.  I can't see a way zombies would actually be a threat in real life.  And even keeping within the parameters of the genre, UD is not a Zombie-sim.  Otherwise all the survivors would probably be dead by now. 

As far as suggestions, I've come up with a few, but I don't think they are good enough to mention.  Either they are unbalanced, something game designers *MUST* take seriously, or they make things too complex.  I personally think shotguns should have at least a 85-90% chance of hitting as far as realism goes, but then (to maintain realism) you have to factor in the possibility that when you miss you have a chance of hitting something else like another survivor.  Or give shotguns a 100% chance to hit, but they do variable damage depending on a percentage table of body parts to crtitcality and they do splash damage hitting multiple targets according to a percentage table and positioning in the room, which is also subject to variable damage, etc. etc. but here we've moved beyond the game and are into niggling details and it's just not worth it.  That's why usually I leave game design up to the designers and just trust them.  Which leads to another point.

Kevan has a zombie character who was rumored to be in Pitneybank.  I don't know, I didn't see him.  When you see a character in your building get on the radio and starts blaring pro-zed sentiments, you immediately think he's either a zed-spy or a *k'er.  You don't trust him.  Maybe you even kill him before he can do damage to the survivors.  This update comes off as a blared pro-Zed broadcast from the maker of the game.  That fits neatly in the category of conflict of interest.  It makes me very worried.  Survivors can deal with Zed's, the creator we can't.  If Kevan is against us, what is the point save pure spite? (Reference the last line of my rant portion.)

Again I'm getting to the end and don't really have a point.  Overall judgement is still wait and see regarding the update.  I don't think it's the doom of the survivors, I never did.  It just made me question some things.
And I am in Giddings right now as well.  I've been in Pitneybank since the seige of Morrish began, got down here as Creedy fell.  I'm proud to be a part of this.  I truly think it has been a magnificent defense and a true victory for survivors.  And yes, I have been bored at times.  I would like this seige to be over, I'm homesick.  I want to get back to Pashenton and do my part to defend my suburb.  But I'm not going to leave until BB2 turns tail and scatters or they drive me from the place.  This is and will be a victory for survivors.

Elu
IC:  Matthew "Red" Patton

[bullgod]

i just find it funny that i see all the same people that were telling us to shut up when the zombies complain about a new human skill are now themselves complaining about a minor zed skill update. oooh we can stand in a building, scary. now instead of calmly walking past the invading zombie to close the doors behind him you'll have to kick his ass first as one would expect in a realistic situation.

until something actually happens to make the game like removing headshot or removing revivification syringes as findable items(still being allowed to manufacture them tho) then you have no room to complain and be heard. its about time we had a bonus, with how few zombies join now of days this game was fast on its way to be coming "PKer wars".

thank you kevan, wherever you are, this a very level headed and just addition to your wonderful game that i am sure will help keep newly joined zombie playing for a long time to come.

[Elusive]

Actually bullgod, I've never told anyone to shut up about anything, I was inactive the last time humans got a new skill so I don't know of any complaints or counter complaints and I'm not *complaining* about the update (I'm actually beginning to like it maybe), and I don't know anything about zombie/human join ratios.   Since people aren't actually reading what I'm saying (Or I just suck at communicating, either way) I'm probably going to remove this post tomorrow-ish . . .  So much for the hope of discussion.

Elu
IC:  Matthew "Red" Patton

[Garum]

I'm new to Malton (started 1/1/08), and my primary character is in Pitneybank defending. I can't speak of game balance, being so new, but I am surprised that I haven't been killed yet. Initially that was mostly luck - zombies broke into my feebly-caded hiding place and ate other people, or I logged on just as they got in and I could run away. Now I have freerunning and can sit in Giddings with hundreds of other people, it doesn't feel very dangerous. I was expecting life as a survivor to be a lot more insecure, and before the update I was starting to feel a bit bored. If the update makes the safe places less safe, and (to my mind) the game more exciting, that's a good thing, and it is also a good thing if it changes the balance between survivor and zombie numbers. I can see why this is a problem. My zombie character is not as interesting to play as the survivor, for sure. He's at Blackmore NT, and all the difficult decision making that a survivor has to do doesn't apply (which building do I stay in when I log off? should I search a hospital for FAKs or is ammo the priority? which is nearer? can I afford to do another search, or should I head back home?). As a zombie, I log in (at a time I hope is likely for other zombies), stand up if I've been killed, and bash at the barricades. A couple of times I've got in and attacked survivors, sometimes one has been nearby outside to attack, but the intriguing risk calculation and balancing isn't there.

In short, I welcome anything that makes life more rewarding for the zombies, and more precarious for survivors, and I say that as a primarily pro-survivor character. There, that'll get me shot by my own side no doubt.

[karek]

Actually bullgod, I've never told anyone to shut up about anything, I was inactive the last time humans got a new skill so I don't know of any complaints or counter complaints and I'm not *complaining* about the update (I'm actually beginning to like it maybe), and I don't know anything about zombie/human join ratios.   Since people aren't actually reading what I'm saying (Or I just suck at communicating, either way) I'm probably going to remove this post tomorrow-ish . . .  So much for the hope of discussion.

Elu
IC:  Matthew "Red" Patton

I'm not aware of any time zombies complained about a survivor update actually. I know most zombie players weren't too happy about the DNA Extractor's can ignore the stack update, or the Forts Update, but they never bitched to this scale about it. Hell, during the Forts Update most of the bitching was survivors complaining Ruin was over powered, and this was back before Ruin blocked Free Running, I mean it literally did nothing but serve as a Ransack that let everyone know it was Ransacked.