Ruddlebankers

[zeug]

And to recap ... No, Extinction won't break the game, isn't about destroying your fun yada yada ... it's a gameplay concept, something even college students should be able to understand ... the difference between a gaming concept and actually playing a game.

One thing though about running with a coordinated zombie group under the present UD server script ... it's damn hard. The degree of coordination required to actually run over the top of barricading survivors with their superior in game comms, light AP usage for barricading and killing and setting up 1AP free runs is ... intense. If you want a challenge then come on over and try Extinction for a while. It requires full meta gaming via IRC, shoutboxes and forums with a good number of meta gaming leaders coordinating together to get the messages through to the non-meta-game zombies and build some momentum. We even have NTJ humans running around providing target info for us to minimize AP wastage. The game as it stands, even with survivors whining about getting eaten every now and then, obviously only favours the largest feral hordes, as in the Mall Tour. But that degree of massed feral touring only comes in cycles, and the smaller more coordinated zombie groups can only rip things up while it's on.

Being a low level zed without a forum at least to coordinate and follow the various groups about totally sucks, and even the level 41+ players overwhelmingly choose life rather than unlife, about 70% to just 30%!! If you want to know how UD could die then right there you've got it, at least a quarter of the standing living are high level players overbarricading themselves into free run fortresses that will only come down once the Mall Tour revives. You kill the game for low level survivors without free running and for low level zeds that don't have the time to invest in serious meta gaming. You will kill the game with boredom, as you point out, simply because the UD engine favours survivor gameplay.

Not even the combined RRF, MOB and Feral Undead can take out a dedicated survivor defence at the moment. So if you're through boring us and yourself and would like a challenge, something to push your gameplay to new heights and stretch your abilities then come on over. I've had heaps of fun the last 2 weeks blitz krieging with the NW Zone crew through Roywood into Dakerstown and we need some more players on IRC to keep it going up north and here in sleepy little Ruddlebank.

Either that or just sit tight playing Ken and Barbie dress ups and serenading one another on your radios and in game speech then every now and then trolling zed forums cos you're bored and boring. I infinitely prefer the intensity of zombie gameplay, it's actually fun.

[Trent Rott]

Complaints about PKing and GKing are also silly, given that survivor behavior is not "in character" either. When a hard-working zombie does his job and turns a survivor undead, what does that player do? Does he "role-play" a soulless, flesh-eating cannibal, or does he take a number, stand in line, and patiently wait to get revived, without getting so much as a scuff mark on his briefcase?

UD is not a role-playing game, it's a strategy game where individuals and groups of players have differing goals. The game engine is simply a means to an end, and any good player will exploit it when it benefits them, as they should.

[armareum]

I think I'll post my reply to the other thread here instead:

We don't want to "win". We just want to play, and yet, the aim of Extinction is to destroy the game. So, sure, you can be polite, and efficient, but you'll be polite and efficient as you try to end the game and ruin the fun of thousands of other players. It doesn't matter that as things are now, you menace only a handful of suburbs, your actual chances of success don't concern me much. What bothers me is that we have a fun game, and here we have an organised minority trying to bring an end to that game, seemingly for the sole purpose of angering strangers and the sense of virtual achievement. To me, that's nearly an assault on a personal philosophy, to see people aiming for destruction and the anger and irritation of fellow people whom they'll never meet.

My gripe with Extinction boils down to this: they're sort of boring in-game.

Zombies should be trying to kill all survivors, and keep them dead. Since zombies are the only side which can concievably win anway (zombies that are shot can always get back up as zombies, survivors that are killed have to be revived in order to be survivors again). This amounts to an effective 'ending of the game', arguably.

What the Extinction has done is to boil down, and refine, the best tactics for a zombies to persue when trying to destroy all survivors. Extinction tactics are a work in progress, although we've started from the work of others (I believe the Salt The Land Policy was not originated from us).

If you don't think that zombies becoming (or at least trying to become) the most effective enemy to survivors that they can is fun... then you clearly don't want a challenging enemy.

[setite]

i want to bring up a point. i dont think the game engine favors humans. OK granted the AP required for killing and barricading is far less taxing than for their lifeless counterparts, but lets look at the facts. humans have a much harder task of maintaining a civilization then zombies do. humans need to search for everything, guns, ammo , generators, fule, syringes, radios, fak's, and then they pay the AP price for using them (syringes at ten AP a piece makes for a short day playing UD). zombie's simply have to make everything the same again. to make a building how we want it we break it, (insted of searching for a gen. and gas only to waist ap on cades everyday, plus more gas) if we die we stand back up, harman scum have to "take a ticket and stand in line", plus more AP from other breathers to get revived.

[Trent Rott]

Discounting the vast population advantage for the moment, you have to look at what the average survivor player has to do. A typical survivor's ultimate goal is to not die. To achieve that, all they have to do is move to a mall or green suburb and ping their character once in a while. If a survivor wants to not die every day, all they have to do is choose (or spawn in) the proper location once, then never do anything again. If they want to revive a zombie each day, they can also do that without breaking a sweat.

A typical zombie's goal to kill survivors. This almost always requires time-sensitive coordination with other zombies. Moving to the right place doesn't guarantee a free meal every day (although it helps). This is the major disadvantage.

Survivors can choose to be lazy if they desire (and most do), because once a critical mass of them is built up, it's almost impossible to be killed by a zombie. Barricading can be done at their leisure when there are not many zombies around...and in most places, there aren't. Worst case scenario, they have to spend a few AP to move somewhere a little safer (although many are not even this clever).

As you point out, they have a lot of options, which keeps them interested longer and also props up the live population. Some survivors choose to specialize, making the task even easier for the lazy or dim survivor.

The lazy zombie is doomed to a life of smashing on random barricades and never getting inside. Eventually these players will quit or turn survivor.

There are all kinds of arguments to be made about how AP can be most effectively exploited, but for the typical player who doesn't participate in forums and doesn't care about groups or wiki politics, it's many times less frustrating to play as a survivor.

[setite]

quote "Discounting the vast population advantage for the moment, you have to look at what the average survivor player has to do. A typical survivor's ultimate goal is to not die. To achieve "that, all they have to do is move to a mall or green suburb and ping their character once in a while. If a survivor wants to not die every day, all they have to do is choose (or spawn in) the proper location once, then never do anything again. If they want to revive a zombie each day, they can also do that without breaking a sweat."
OK i think everyone's altamate goal in playing this game is to have fun, human or undead. and you dont have fun sitting around in a green suburb for months not doing anything. and to revive a zombie everyday that would cost him like 15-20 AP. more if he produces his own syringes. im sorry but i think thats a sweat.
you do have a point though about the lone survivor versus the lone zombie. it is much more rewarding to be a low level lone survivor then to be the same but dead.
all i was saying was that the statement "the game engine is geared twards harmanz" is arguable at best.

[Trent Rott]

setite said:

you dont have fun sitting around in a green suburb for months not doing anything.

You'd think so, but have you ever been to Dulston?

and to revive a zombie everyday that would cost him like 15-20 AP. more if he produces his own syringes. im sorry but i think thats a sweat.

A survivor can dispatch a zombie a day with half his AP, without using anything like strategy and without interacting with allies. A lucky zombie can kill a survivor a day with all his AP, and this requires coordination. At least one or two allies will have to sacrifice all or most of their AP just to make that possible. Those are incredible odds.

all i was saying was that the statement "the game engine is geared twards harmanz" is arguable at best.

If you're talking steel cage match, OK, but in actual gaming conditions, survivors have a tremendous advantage. A very slightly observant survivor with Free Running and Construction is almost unkillable without zombie coordination. This is, of course, assuming the survivor is optimizing his chances to not die, which is not at all how they typically behave, but I'm just talking about the engine.

If a survivor really wants to live, all he has to do is move when the zombie weather gets thick, but poor strategy and irrational attachment to location prevent this from happening in reality, in the same way that the vast majority of zombies squander their most powerful ability (standing inside instead of outside).

To break it down even further, wins and losses are all ultimately based on barricades and survivors have a distinct advantage in that area, and therefore in the game itself. They obviously don't exploit that advantage all the time, thus the game.

It would be interesting to see the results of a simulation in which automated survivors and zombies each maximized their potential.

[armareum]

trentrott said:

It would be interesting to see the results of a simulation in which automated survivors and zombies each maximized their potential.

Actually, I was already considering doing something similar to that. I wanted to work out the typical XP earning rate for 2 different survivor strategies (Trenchcoating and DNA scan/reviving) and compare it against a zombie's typical earning rate.

[Trent Rott]

Personally, I'm not interested in XP. Once you have two or three skills, gaining XP ceases to be very important. The survivor:zombie ratio is a result of the AP game. For individuals, the major factor is the climate in a given suburb, which is usually directly related to mall proximity.

A dream project would be something like Kevan's Java zombie infection simulator, with all the complexities of UD built in. It'd be great to plug in seemingly simple changes and see the results. (Kevan is already doing this, using us as lab mice.)

It'd all be mental wanking, since simulating "typical" player behavior is futile, but it could yield interesting strategies and distributions which would be a blueprint for how to "win". Although no one in real life would follow it, so, again, just wanking.

[setite]

i dont know i juess well have to agree to disagree or some shit. i still think its a pain to have to search for every god damn thing and spend mass AP to keep a place searchable to begin with. zombies dont need a damn thing but other zombies.

[Ragged Robin]

trentrott said:

The survivor:zombie ratio is a result of the AP game.

I believe the AP game is a factor, though I'm not aware of much evidence supporting its importance.

(A lot also depends on what we mean by "the AP game." Define it generally enough and it reminds me of the joke/koan about the two young fish hanging around the pond. A wise old whiskery fish swims by, so they stop goofing off. "Morning boys," he says, "How's the water?" The boys smile and nod politely. When the old fish has passed, one turns to the other and says, "What the fuck is water?")

I think there's good evidence that player behaviour accounts for a major portion of the variance. We've repeatedly seen swings from 60:40 to 40:60 and back because of the Mall Tours, without any serious tweaks to AP costs. Maybe another way of stating it is that the actual math of the AP game is almost certainly not where most people are playing, most of the time.

It's also hard to separate the AP game from what I've often thought is the single most important ratio determinant, which is simply what people want to play. A major fraction of characters are essentially both survivors and zombies. They only stay as one or the other because it's what they find the most fun.

[Trent Rott]

You're right that saying it's an "AP game" is a pretty banal observation. "What you do determines how well you do"...well, DUH!

I was thinking of maximizing AP advantage vs. any consideration of XP in terms of idealized play. Focussing on AP will lead you to the most efficient strategies, moreso than worrying about giving your enemy free XP or various methods of gaining XP for yourself (trenchcoating vs. support). This comes up when people discuss how squatting a building makes it easy for survivors to harvest XP. Ideally, this is almost meaningless, although I suppose there's the psychological factor of the positive reinforcement of gaining many (mostly useless) skills quickly.

You're right in that the major controlling factor of the ratio is player preference for one side or the other, but the Mall Tour proved that there is significant potential to move these numbers involuntarily. I guess none of us would be here if we didn't believe that.

zombies dont need a damn thing but other zombies.

I would argue that a competent ally is the rarest thing in the game.

[Ragged Robin]

trentrott said:

Focussing on AP will lead you to the most efficient strategies, moreso than worrying about giving your enemy free XP or various methods of gaining XP for yourself (trenchcoating vs. support). This comes up when people discuss how squatting a building makes it easy for survivors to harvest XP.

That's actually why I replied to whosis in that other thread - not that I care to convince him, but I wanted to air publicly the fact that his XP argument was a steaming wheelbarrow.

I stated only that STL doesn't truly facilitate XP gain, but I agree totally with your point, i.e., even if it did, who cares?

[zeug]

Below is a post by guest "Mr Z":

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Trent's post just ^there^ is the unintentionally funniest thing I've seen on a forum in days! But I'm not going to start tearing apart his little quipping, nor am I intending to debate gaming philosophies or accuse you guys of Being Mean. I'm more concerned with your flawed logic of a defense and the fact that you guys are, actually, breaking rules explicitly.

generatorkiller said:

This is the game's official stance on alt-abuse: www.urbandead.com/faq.html#mult

Am I allowed to play multiple characters?

You are, provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game - your characters should not collaborate, nor share (or stand outside) the same building. Multiple characters found to be working together in a suspicious fashion will be automatically flagged, penalised or even banned permanently by the system. If you're running a few characters, it's best to make sure that they stay in separate suburbs.

No-one is using multiple characters to break into buildings at the same time, in the same suburb. At worst, our folks will have one or 2 alts squatting NT's that are nowhere near their main character, I've got one in New Arkham, and one in Fryerbank, while my main characters are in Ruddlebank and Dakerstown.

The game is designed to automatically penalise, and even *delete* characters that abuse multiple accounts. I've seen this happen to people before, the system is not very picky when it comes to this sort of thing.


Extinction follows all rules as declared by the creator of the game.

It ignores all rules imposed upon the game by other players that think everyone else in the game should play in exactly the same way as them... see the mIRC thread over in general discussion for a typical example of a whiner that's complaining about PK'ers.

That said, I respect your notions of fair play, but be aware - we're here to win, and to be relatively polite while we do it, too.

We're not a typical role-playing group that would cover up your "Extinction are zerging scum" tag with "jiminsanes suckz lol".

It would be a waste of AP, and would be detrimental to success...

This is a post from the first page excusing the tactics used by Extinction against zerging and accusations of rule breaking.

Importance is placed by the poster in the sections of the rules which forbid players from creating alternative characters which share the same building. "Our alts do not share the same buildings as each other. We have a strategy to prevent our alts from crossing the proximity line of our characters" is the defense.

However, prior to the text within the rules which forbids alts from entering a close proximity of one another is something which has been ignored by these alt-spawners:

Am I allowed to play multiple characters?

You are, provided that they lead completely separate existences within the game - your characters should not collaborate, nor share (or stand outside) the same building. Multiple characters found to be working together in a suspicious fashion will be automatically flagged, penalised or even banned permanently by the system. If you're running a few characters, it's best to make sure that they stay in separate suburbs.

Your characters should not collaborate, nor interact, nor co-exist. Sharing the proximity of one another is only a detail of this rule.

Now, are you guys breaking this rule of "No alts may interact or collaborate!"? Gee let me think. Your alts do indeed work towards the same goals directly. One alt breaks in, the other alt follows and sleeps. In fact, your entire strategy is based on this interaction. Your alts are specifically designed to work together (collaborate, dur) in order to reach whatever goal you have set out. Even though they don't sleep together, even you yourselves don't deny that you create alts to co-operate within the same strategy. In this quote from what I'm guessing is your strategy manifesto, I've highlighted this confession:

THIS SOUNDS LIKE ZERGING.

It isn?t. Yeah, you?re using a buttload of alts. Yeah, they?re all working towards the same goal. But think about that: any two alts on the same side (survivor or zombie) work towards the same goal, no matter how far apart they are. A survivor with alts in two NT buildings is preventing ransacks in both of those, keeping the syringe supply fat so as not to impose on the revive systems in other suburbs? including the one where his alt is.

Regarding your defense in this quote, using the example given of two survivor alts at opposite ends of Malton, both seeking the same goal of surviving. This is not collaborating, so long as they are not interacting a la strategy (as your guys are) and not co-operating towards the same strategic goal (as your guys are) - two things synonymous with collaboration. Same for zombies at opposite ends of Malton: so long as they are not interacting, not coinciding and not co-reliant (again, your guys^^) they are not collaborating.

So yes, you guys are in fact breaking the rules by spawning alts which collaborate. I would appreciate if some intelligent Extinction general were to respond to this post.

[zeug]

You're rather excitable Mr Z, maybe take a deep breath first then try and develop a coherent argument.

Where do those quotes come from? As far as I'm concerned the official policy is contained in the Extinction Wiki article. If you are seriously trying to claim that multi abuse extends to a zombie in Dakerstown occupying an NT while an alt is laying siege to an NT in Miltown then I absolutely reject your ludicrous interpretation of the UD rules.

As for zerging, well have a look at the Extinction Taccon, it's set up precisely to help zombies coordinate with one another. Zergers presumably communicate to themselves by other means. Our zeds, and their NTJ Scouts, meet up in the IRC Ready Room Chat to plan, then move to the in-game Field Phone to communicate in real time in order to break and enter, groan, attack the weakest defender and drag them out to attract all the non-Extinction zeds that follow the brain train.

[Donny Waters]

Well, the official Urban Dead Wiki entry on Zerging specifically mentions the case of using alts to squat in ransacked buildings. Here is what the article says about it: "Ransack allows a lone zombie sentinel to prevent survivors barricading a ransacked building until it is killed - however this is prefectly legal in the game rules, and is not zerging unless the character interacts with another of that player's alt's." By that definition, it's clear that Extinction members aren't zerging; just because someone uses different alts to squat in ransacked NTs, that doesn't necessarily mean that their characters are interacting with each other.

In the particular theoretical example of 2 separate survivor characters (who are both controlled by the same player) at opposite ends of the city - The long term goal of these survivors is to rid Malton of the zombie infestation. Two possible strategies they can use to achieve that goal is to A.) Kill zombies, or B.) Revive zombies. If the 2 characters both use one of these strategies, you could argue that they are collaborating in a very loose sense of the word, though they aren't actually interacting with one another. It would be pretty silly to claim that the player is breaking the rules of the game though just because his characters employ the same strategy to achieve the same goal.

I'll agree that even if your characters stay in separate suburbs, they can collaborate (in a stricter sense of the word) if they privately share information amongst themselves. I guess it's possible that Extinction members are doing that, but it would be completely unnecessary. There are public calls that go out for squatters that any zombie (regardless of their group affiliation) can respond to. Even our detailed strategies, tactics, and list of official targets are publicly available for anyone to see.

There certainly are zergers in UD, but I'm not aware of anyone from Extinction who does it. I'm guessing it would be very easy to cheat if you wanted to (though it might also be pretty obvious to onlookers). You could create a small army of 10 zombies, each with different IP addresses, and then move them all en masse into a building once it's ransacked. I just haven't seen that happening in the game though. In reality, holding onto ransacked NTs for any length of time has proven to be an extremely difficult challenge.

{BTW, if anyone cares, I personally only have 1 single zombie character in the entire game. It's just too much trouble for me to handle multiple alts... I already spend enough time on the game as it is. }

[Trent Rott]

Donny, I pretty much agree with your assessment of the situation, but remember that "zerging" is a player-defined term that has no bearing on actual game legality. Things written in the wiki do not define the rules.

The only valid rules are those written by Kevan, so for the purposes of this discussion, just that little paragraph in the FAQ, which any dolt can see we aren't violating, either in spirit or in the letter of the rule.

[Mr Z]

zeug said:

You're rather excitable Mr Z, maybe take a deep breath first then try and develop a coherent argument.

Where do those quotes come from? As far as I'm concerned the official policy is contained in the Extinction Wiki article. If you are seriously trying to claim that multi abuse extends to a zombie in Dakerstown occupying an NT while an alt is laying siege to an NT in Miltown then I absolutely reject your ludicrous interpretation of the UD rules.

As for zerging, well have a look at the Extinction Taccon, it's set up precisely to help zombies coordinate with one another. Zergers presumably communicate to themselves by other means. Our zeds, and their NTJ Scouts, meet up in the IRC Ready Room Chat to plan, then move to the in-game Field Phone to communicate in real time in order to break and enter, groan, attack the weakest defender and drag them out to attract all the non-Extinction zeds that follow the brain train.

A facade of an intelligent reply portrayed via obvious sniping, so as to distract the quoted poster with personal attacks. Usually adopted by folk who can't formulate a sufficient response, so reply with veiled insults. Very transparent.

Those quotes were posted earlier in that thread from which this was moved, as well you should know. As I stated, I presumed they were extracts of a manifesto written by an Extinction brain.

Still I've scanned your link; it provides me with no significant new information. Perhaps you were focusing me towards this self imposed regulation:


* Only one Extinction character per player can be used in each Extinction Command Zone.


I'm afraid that neither this, nor the guts of your reply, deals with my complaint. It would appear that you do not correctly interpret my complaint though, so I'll spell it out.

You say:
We are not abusing alts because even though our alts work together, they do not interact with a proximity. See? See? The rules say that alts shouldn't share suburbs, but that's not what we're doing so we are ok.

I say:
Actually the rules say you are not allowed to collaborate your alts. Collaboration means working together to reach a goal. This is what you are doing with your alts. You create alts specifically to strive towards the success of a specific operation, one which is also being undertaken by your main zombie characters. In fact, the strategy by it's very nature is in breach of rules as it necessitates this collaboration.

Now if you think you understand my complaint, state why you absolutely reject these accusations. Also please do not misinterpret me again, as it forces me to repeat myself.

As for your last paragraph concerning zerging... are you seriously claiming that it's not zerging because you guys use a chatroom to communicate? That's a vastly incorrect qualification of zerging. I'd suggest you google for a rough definition. This is from the Urban dictionary:

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zerging

zerging

n. Using massive amounts of weak, or generic units, to attack an enemy.
Used widely in PlanetSide, to describe massive amount of soliders that spawn in a tower, and then attack a base.
It comes from the word zerg. Zergs in Starcraft were able to produce large amount of units very quickly.

In MMORPGs, it is also the term of a person creating accounts solely for game-breaking purposes.

The first given definition is amazingly applicable, don't you think? If you think, "goh but our alt zombies don't do any attacking per se", then you are really stretching the attempted logic of your tactics. Make no mistake, your alts are designed to be obtrusive and passive-offensive. You are zerging.

Now please, an intelligent civil and polite reply this time.

[Mr Z]

@donny and Trent re: Wiki of Zerging.

Good find, relevant too. But still I'd argue that the process of creating alts to guard a building ransacked by a non-alt (whatever that term is..) even if the non-alt is not present during the time of squatting involves strong strategical interaction of these alts &non-alts. In that strategical interaction is almost synonymous with collaboration.

@trent's post. Any dolt etc.

Care to explain how you are not in violation of the rules which prevent alt collaboration? Or would you rather continue spouting nonconstructive, arbitrary insults so as to promote a self-superior atmosphere on the thread?

@donny's post again, but more importantly this time.

I had understood it that the Extinction tactics were using and encouraging the spawning of alts to serve it's purpose? If I've misunderstood then I'll rescind my complaint, as it wouldn't actually be breaking any rules.

If what Jim quoted in his first post (also quoted in my first post) is correct then alt spawning is indeed encouraged, so I'm going to ask him where he got that quote from. The Extinction page on the UD wiki is clean of these orders btw so that's good.

[armareum]

As zeug says, it'd be nice if you could tell us where you are getting your second quote from, Mr. Z. The only other place I can find it at the moment is in a quote from James Guest, further back in the thread. I don't know where he got if from originally.
extinction101.proboards100.com/index.cgi?board=sw&action=display&thread=1180936463&page=1

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realise you'd replied already. But you did what I expected.

It certainly *looks* like an old version of an Extinction wiki page, though I can't find it. If it ever *was* like that, it certainly isn't now. Our official stance is for any Extinction alts to operate in completely seperate corners on Malton. Any of the 50 NW, 50 NE, 50 SW or 50 SE suburbs. And since we're currently fighting right in the corners, that's a very large distance - impossible to travel in one day. I.e. more that 50 APs worth of travel.

We don't encourage alt-usage in the way you describe. Although the tactic you describe (one alt to squat an NT and use another to attack 'cades, survivors etc) wouldn't flag the zerg detection mechanisms of Urban Dead (due to no interaction), *personally* I agree that would be verging on cheating; in bad form at the very least.
We've actually found it's not necessary to alt in that manner, since we've developed the art of feral-zombie pied piping around 'burbs.
If it *was* necessary, we'd have to create so many alts that it'd clear to anyone that we realyl *were* cheating.
--

The only collaboration you could accuse us of is where some of us have alts that are also in Extinction, albeit working in seperate corners of Malton. And *that* would only be because they are all working for the grander schemings of Extinction - not a great crime, since all zeds are generally fighting for the same things anyway, so you might as well call anyone with two zombie alts a zerger.