The "Friendly Zombie" Attitude

[HypeBurst]

This really needs to stop. I've noticed this become far more abundant recently.
Example :

Player854 started the hunt
Player854: I'M NOT KILLING ANYONE, I'M NICE :3
And:
Player854 finds player.
Player854: Don't Worry, I'm not getting you, i like you.

Honestly this ruins game-play terribly and makes this server look boring for new players.
Now i admit, I've done this in the past because I wanted people to not get me in future but now that I've noticed how bad it is for the server, I don't do it anymore.

Also, when theres a small server of people who know each other and everyone is like, "ok no getting each other guys", and you're the one person who wants to kill people, it makes it very awkward. This happened to me last night,

Hypeburst started the hunt
[>] Player24: Dont kill people, im going for BG.
Then everyone started saying it. I wanted to go and kill everyone but I KNOW that everyone would have been like, "Hype why did you have to ruin everything". So I sat there like a duck while they won because i didn't want to be THAT one player. <---- Which was cowardly of me.

So can we pleassssse go back to when everyone killed everyone and when the server was a fun place to be.

 

[Theodorre]

I totally agree with this.


Even though I did this.


It does ruin gameplay and sometimes, when no new people join mid round, there's one zombie the entire game and no one gets caught.

 

[Pikmon2]

Gai, so its the same on zombie as it is for TNT? It's an apocalypse, how can there be peace?!

 

[JKangaroo]

I don't know what to say that you haven't already said opinion-wise.

Honestly, I don't really know why people do this.
The universal definition that is considered to giving meaning to a game, is that the interactivity produced by our medium is used to propose either a challenge, or unique experience one would not have otherwise.
By this, why does one play upon our communities server, whether it be Lava, TNT, Zombie...
If not to have a particular challenge each and every server represents?
The goal of Zombie Survival is yes; to survive, but also, to kill. This brings a simple challenge that almost everyone can relate to from childhood shenanigans, as well as one we can understand.
We are you even play on a server like this, only to make it dumbed-down, and making it boring for you, and un-enjoyable for the rest of the players? It just seems a bit absurd.

I've never really seen a problem with not wanting to kill someone until recently.
I recall small, inside jokes between players during play occasionally on this topic.
Perhaps I believe quite awhile ago, a memory between I believe Ooglie and I, perhaps I would not eat him, in a strange gentlemanly agreement to not eat that very same person the following round if we did indeed discover them; only to find our agreement trashed by a hilarious backstabbing between online friends.
It was normally always a joke, and honestly, never really affected gameplay, since we knew the price of playing on the server, which was to play the objective given to us, and have fun.

If I recall, this has been going on for awhile, and looking back, I remember a specific thread in which someone thought an award should be given to Zombies who do not kill a player in a round.
This was found here, though the initial post was deleted: http://blocktopia.net/forum/threads/new-achievement-the-zombie-saint.8660/
I especially like the post made by JtTorso found here:

This is like a lava server with no Lava, TNT with no TNT or combat, you've literally halted the game, I just don't get you people anymore.

This quote basically sums up the idea of not attacking or hunting for that very purpose.

It honestly is fairly annoying when this occurs, especially when certain people actually do these feats themselves, such as Bear Grylls. There is no honor, no satisfaction, and honestly as stated before, just really ruins the game for the majority of the playerbase. Agreeing with you totally here Hype. I don't really think I would have thought up the idea this has been going on until you made this, and its good to make a fairly interesting concern heard and known.

 

[Awwwyea]

Hypeburst started the hunt
[>] Player24: Dont kill people, im going for BG.
Then everyone started saying it. I wanted to go and kill everyone but I KNOW that everyone would have been like, "Hype why did you have to ruin everything". So I sat there like a duck while they won because i didn't want to be THAT one player.

You made this thread to stop something you... did yourself? You're an Operator, you're supposed to fucking destroy everything that moves if you're a zombie. kk? Don't bend to people's will if it completely ruins the game the server is there for man.

As for the thread itself, I agree. You're ruining the whole fundamental point of the server, just to please some guy you have an above-average acquaintanceship with over the internet. I'm sorry to break that down to you, but it's true. (With SPECIAL exceptions obviously).

 

[Wink]

Yeah, this topic is a bit sketchy. Usually when there's a friendly zombie, and i track him down and tag him to get the game going :)

 

[Ansoro2112]

I sometimes do this. Actually today I was the first zombie in one map but I decided to not kill anyone. And Vatu told me that was NOT allowed. If you are the first zombie you are supposed to keep the game going and to make it fun. And I do agree with that. It can make the game a bit boring. But that was the first time I heard about that because I have seen SOOOOOO many players done that in the past and NEVER heard someone telling them thats not allowed. So yeah. I learned something today.

Now. Sometimes it can happens that you find someone. And the round is about to end. So you just decide to spare him. I dont really find a problem with that.

The thing here is to not do it SO OFTEN.

 

[HypeBurst]

You made this thread to stop something you... did yourself? You're an Operator, you're supposed to fucking destroy everything that moves if you're a zombie. kk? Don't bend to people's will if it completely ruins the game the server is there for man.

Yeah thats what brought this to my attention, probably should have typed something like dont be scared to do this after that story.

 

[DarkHender]

I for sure have done this, though never knew it was not allowed nor told that it shouldn't be happening. I agree that it makes the game very boring so when I'm first zombie, hello killing spree.

 

[Jayfeather]

Oh dear, I've always had a fear something like this would happen. Like said above - the game is fundamentally torn down and/or ruined by this kind of behavior and rules need to be enforced to stop it if it's as big as a problem as stated. (Notice: I haven;t been on the server in months, just my 2 cents on the topic)

 

[tommy]

I completely agree, in fact I even contemplated posting something similar to this but in rule form.

 

[kraby1]

Haha TheRedShark <3

Most of us did this, if not all because we didn't want to kill some people in particular.
Bear Grylls is suppose to be hard to get, people can't just ask not to be killed.
Want BG, try.
Someone ruined your streak? Deal with it, it's the point of the game to kill every human possible.

In my opinion (pls dont forget tractor > poop > my opinion), people shouldn't really do that, it can get annoying after a while when you want to have some movie action chase but you can't because someone is being nice and not killing anyone. On the other hand, some people like that because they want free wins.

 

[snowma]

I am a sick human killing machine. People tell me not to kill them because they are going for BG? I'll take them down first like a zombie sniper.

 

[Trap_Wolf]

Oh dear. Here I am with the unpopular opinion. Again.

Let me address what I see are different issues here:
- People annoucing their non-aggressive state
- Enforcing a kill policy
- The extreme of the non-aggressive state
- Bear Grylls

And let me bring a new topic to the debate:
- The other extreme: People only playing to kill

Obviously this wouldn't come up as an issue if it wasn't being spotted so frequently. It's irritating when someone every round is yelling obnoxiously their self proclaimed status of being a no-attacking-enemy can be a consisting bug to anyone who legitimately feels they are playing the games from what they see as the correct gameplay. I comepletely understand that, but if the resolution here is to tell players that are holding a gigantic sign that says: "LOOK AT ME. I'M BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE I DON'T KILL PEOPLE" then you have a reason to use your rank to tell that person that while it may be amusing it can cause future problems. That they can continue to play as they wish but not have to keep explaining every detail of their gameplay.

The problem I do have with this thread; is that it's implying we force other players to kill. That's as if we were also going to tell players who relog in and play as a zombie can't do that anymore. The opposite here: theoretically what if 2/3s of the playerbase liked to relog into the game? Can you tell them not to do that anymore? No, it's their choice to play Zombie Survival as they wish. And this does happen; people have complained while on the server that Player A is always a zombie. I've never seen an Operator tell Player A that they can't be a zombie anymore and they have to survive. That upsets Player A because they aren't getting to do what they log in to do. Which is to simply kill Player B, which incidentally only wants to survive and not kill.

Bear Grylls. This is definitely up to opinion, but if players are working together so they can all achieve Bear Grylls: What the hell exactly is wrong with that? They're using their resources. They're working as a team to get a goal. I keep seeing a lot of people expressing their opinion that Bear Grylls is a solo award only but I also see it can work as either or. There have been numerous times where the server has only 5 people and those 5 people play consistently in the small time they have to get to, I dunno 4-6/10 rounds, before it all goes to hell. But it's an effort that tells the people of interest to work together. I personally think it's endearing when I see players working together to help on a jumpcourse, or assist in hiding spots, or concealing secrets that the other people they are working together with: They'll probably never meet in real life, but have asserted a relationship over a video game trying to help one another in an award.

Restating a lot of tl;dr info here: What the actual issue I see here are players who are just blurting out their passive-aggressive state. If they're silent and joking about it that's fine in my opinion. I mean look at my /whois. I have 100+ human karma and only 1 zombie karma. A single zombie karma, because it is my viewpoint that I don't think playing as a zombie is a goal for me, nor do I find enjoyment in it. But I've don't go around announcing that I'm not killing people luls lok @ me.

Yes I am totally up in arms about people being disruptive in ANY STATE. But I am stonefooted about we can not hinder any player on how they wish to play Zombie Survival.

The problem is not HOW they play the game but their SOCIAL INTERACTION with the game.

Anything can go positive and negative. Completely ideal would be that all players have the same desire to be either a human or a zombie or with that there is a 1:1 ratio of a player(s) that want to be only human and player(s) that want to be zombie.

 

[Ansoro2112]

I TOTALLY agree with you Trap Wolf.

 

[Night_Slayer_]

I TOTALLY agree with you Trap Wolf.

Says the guy with 17 survives

Sorry,I think I may of started the 'no killing' thing

 

[soapless]

Trap Wolf,I'm going to play devil's advocate here. If there are zombies who don't chase humans, the round will stagnate and people will go afk because it's boring. If an op jumps in or a player relogs to become a zombie gameplay still moves along, but at an even faster pace. Players relogging actually speeds up gameplay. While, yes, if too many people relog then it wouldn't be fun, but zombies not acting like zombies actually hurts the flow of the round.

Also, people working together to get Bear Grylls is awesome, people working with zombies to get Bear Grylls is not awesome. That's the point of this thread.

 

[Txboy1234]

If your a op and your on and someone says they wont kill anyone, just unref and kill everyone, it gets people to stop doing that because when i'm on I don't hear that much anymore. Even though I don't agree with people being picked first and not killing anyone.

 

[Damer_Flinn]

"LOOK AT ME. I'M BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE I DON'T KILL PEOPLE"

My answer to this is "I'm not killing them, just infecting them. "

On topic though, when I'm on and see the round begin to stagnate ("where's the zombie?", "when does the round start?") I'll happily go bump into the closest zombie to get things moving again. As you said, "the problem is not how they play the game but their social interaction with the game." However even a "quiet friendly zombie" will have an adverse effect on the social situation of the server. People will get bored of this fairly quickly. In the same way that I have seen complaints of the 15 minute maps. Zombies don't try as hard on those maps (move slower, don't care about falling) and people get bored. The Zombie server is meant to be a fast game, one that keeps you on your toes at all times, one that keeps you nervous and guessing. It's not meant for you to spend an entire round sitting and waiting for nothing to happen because someone is "being friendly" and not infecting anyone. Those "friendly" zombies kill the server a little bit each time they encourage that type of game play.

 

[Trap_Wolf]

If there are zombies who don't chase humans, the round will stagnate and people will go afk because it's boring.

Understandable and a plausible fact, but any game can be boring at times and is not always perfect. There will always be fluctuating high-points and low-points in any recreation. Stating from before: I do not disagree with people being upset over people flaunting their refusal to kill humans. What I disagree with this thread is . . .(1)

If an op jumps in or a player relogs to become a zombie gameplay still moves along, but at an even faster pace. Players relogging actually speeds up gameplay.

Then why don't we do that? If you're willing to be a Zombie then go ahead and /ref. Completely up to you, and a contention of, "What if you're the only Operator online?"isn't applicable here because it's an Operator going from Zombie to a Referee. They can freely return to Zombie after taking care of whatever situation occurs. About the relogging and people going afk; Are you implying that roundtimes are too long with that statement? The roundtimes are set to balance out the game and if you think a map needs a /time adjusted you should talk to the HCs about resetting the maptime to something different.

While, yes, if too many people relog then it wouldn't be fun, but zombies not acting like zombies actually hurts the flow of the round.

Review my first paragraph.

Also, people working together to get Bear Grylls is awesome, people working with zombies to get Bear Grylls is not awesome. That's the point of this thread.

Like I said, it's still using your resources. That "Zombie" is still a player who can make choices on their own. And the point of this thread is mainly focused on people being concerned with an imbalanced gameplay, and not just a focus on the award itself.

(1) . . . We can not enforce a "must kill" or vice visa rule. This is not and should not be a solution. What should be enforced is how we tell people to not be so aggressive about their passiveness.

 

[Awwwyea]

This isn't something that can really be debatable imo.

Would you complain if you were playing Skyrim and the one guy you needed to progress the main story had died and couldn't be revived? Of course because now you have to play the game from the beginning AGAIN. Same thing here, people not doing what they're supposed to in the game itself. NPC or not, it ruins the game if something that majorly affects the fun of reaching the objective is present.

Now stop arguing/debating about this like it's the end of the world because it's not. It's a problem that everyone that has seen this thread can fix themself, and they can't do it, if you keep drawing them back into his thread to debate some more.

 

[soapless]

Understandable... (1)
Then why don't we do that? (2)
Like I said, it's still using your resources.(3)
We can not enforce a "must kill" or vice visa rule.(5)

(1) The point is, we don't want our game to be boring, saying that any game can be boring at times is setting a sub-par standard.

(2.1) I don't normally unref in the middle of a round, but I see operators doing it all of the time. One of the main reasons we have referees is to oversee the match, if someone is unreachable, but the people who spot the rule breaker don't call him out, the op who is playing will never know. Another big reason for operators to be flying around is to catch any lag pillarers who might lag pillar up to a spot that is supposed to be jumped to from a jumpcourse. And of course all of the other various roles referees play. When you're playing, you're never going to catch these rule breakers and it will continue to happen.

(2.2) Round times are just fine as long as zombies are doing their job and kill people.

(3) Zombies is a faith based game. We have faith in people to not break rules. We also have faith that humans won't be jerks to each other(i.e. giving their spots away). Why should we not have faith in zombies to kill humans?

(4) I agree with you here, but there are a lot of solutions to that. One could be to program a script to select another zombie after x amount of time(or something around that idea).

Again, the whole point of the game is for people to become infected and infect other people, if they don't do that, then we don't have a game.

Also, I'm not one for long debates so I'll cut it off here.

 

[Jeff0521]

Trap Wolf , I agree 100% with you.

I can see how it makes the round boring (to some people), but you know...

People can play the game how they want to play it.

No question about it. You can't tell others how they are to play a game.

 

[JKangaroo]

Trap Wolf , I agree 100% with you.
I can see how it makes the round boring (to some people), but you know...
People can play the game how they want to play it.
No question about it. You can't tell others how they are to play a game.

This completely contradicts how most...
Scratch that: Contradicts pretty much how every game, and basically every law or standard is created, made, and set into place by the general public.

If this is true, then....
1) I should be aloud to bash down that door in a scripted event in Call of Duty and not have to wait for the AI to do it for me when I'm just as capable.
2) I shouldn't need to worry about all the resource gathering and trade agreements needed to advance my civilization in the Civilization or Age of Empire games because I just want to fight off my enemies and build a nice looking empire.
3) I should be able to go in guns blazing like Rambo in every, very obvious stealth game that goes on the market.
If this were true, then basically every game, or fact of life, would become broken, and we wouldn't be having these experiences we have today in gaming, books, television, etc. Each and every one of these games would essentially, besides perhaps the Call of Duty example, be stripped of each and every one of the main mechanics, and basically ruin the gameplay of the game itself; leaving it an empty shell. This idea is very flawed in nature.

The fact is, every thing in life has a set standard, rule, or law we have to pertain to.
This idea spans the objectives given in a Real-time strategy game.
It defines the way we look at mannerisms and and the way people should live in our daily lives as humans.
These standards and structures have been built upon one another for centuries.
These rules define what the game is, and pretty much puts what mechanics, and what style of game it is.

In our case, we have the normal, Zombie Survival Rule Guidelines that help keep the server user friendly, and allow a balanced, and funner experience if they were not put in place otherwise.
This idea of the "Friendly Zombie" can easily fall under that prefecture.
If I should be aloud to play the game how I want it to be, just allow me to pillar to the top of the map and let me live for all of the rounds.
However, the fact remains is that it still creates an in-balance in the game's structure and greatly diminishes the fundamental enjoyment for many players , and can ruin the overall experience for some.

So no, as much as the idea appears to be good and sound, there is a very bad underlying truth that pertains to this style of subject. You cannot give that total freedom in a game; and in fact,in all games, that total freedom is, and cannot be given based on their game structure.

Anyways, the whole discussion is basically wrapped up by what Awwwyea said. Just wanted to give some of my 2-cents on that post.

 

[Jeff0521]

The fact is, every thing in life has a set standard, rule, or law we have to pertain to.
This idea spans the objectives given in a Real-time strategy game.
It defines the way we look at mannerisms and and the way people should live in our daily lives as humans.
These standards and structures have been built upon one another for centuries.
These rules define what the game is, and pretty much puts what mechanics, and what style of game it is.

In our case, we have the normal, Zombie Survival Rule Guidelines that help keep the server user friendly, and allow a balanced, and funner experience if they were not put in place otherwise.
This idea of the "Friendly Zombie" can easily fall under that prefecture.
If I should be aloud to play the game how I want it to be, just allow me to pillar to the top of the map and let me live for all of the rounds.
However, the fact remains is that it still creates an in-balance in the game's structure and greatly diminishes the fundamental enjoyment for many players , and can ruin the overall experience for some.

I have no idea what point you are trying to come across with the other stuff, but this part stood out.

"If I should be aloud to play the game how I want it to be, just allow me to pillar to the top of the map and let me live for all of the rounds."

No. There is a difference between breaking the rules, and playing how you want to play. Obviously you have to follow the rules. But it isn't a rule that you have to infect as a zombie. I could write an essay explaining this, but quite honestly I do not feel like it. Think of America... It's a free country. BUT even though it's a free country, there are rules set in place. Do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't go against a rule...

I'm not sure if I am explaining it correctly, but it makes sense in my mind.

Put aside the rules, you have a game that you can play as you please. In Premium Minecraft, do you HAVE to go to "the end" and defeat the Ender Dragon? No. You can build things, RP with friends, and hell, you can even spend your whole life making an exact replica of the world if you wanted. This is playing the game how YOU want to play it. Minecraft is just a perfect example of that. Not getting humans while you are a zombie is up to you. You aren't risking the fate of the world by doing this are you? No.