Raise odds of successful zombification

[Whirlaway]

Agree with higher zombie chance, lower avoids, and more kill slots. How about ten for Platinum trophy holders?

[HeatherMarie]

Bumping this, can we PLEASE get some sort of change here?? Pleeaassseee? Even if TJ doesn't want to directly raise the odds of success, how about just lessening the odds of dodges? I just got *five* dodges out of 7 attempts... 5 out of 7. That's a little ridiculous. 

 

edit: 6. 6 out of 8 kill attempts were dodged. Come on!

Edited March 5, 2018 by HeatherMarie

[Tears in Rain]

Even though less dodges would be cool, I dont think it would help much if they all end up dying for good anyway  I don't mind better kill success, but higher success rates of actual zombifying would be the key - otherwise in this sense DC turns into a dragon slaughtering game from a dragon collecting game, lol.

[JavaTigress]

37 minutes ago, Tears in Rain said:

Even though less dodges would be cool, I dont think it would help much if they all end up dying for good anyway  I don't mind better kill success, but higher success rates of actual zombifying would be the key - otherwise in this sense DC turns into a dragon slaughtering game from a dragon collecting game, lol.

I'll admit it, that is one reason I haven't gone for more zombies than the two I have. I don't REALLY like all those dead tombstones on my scroll. ( Ones that are NOT zombies)

Dead eggies from my vampires are bad enough. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by JavaTigress

[StormWizard212]

Each time I've tried to get zombies since the new sprites were introduced, I've been pretty unsuccessful. I definitely agree that it's a little too difficult to obtain zombies at the moment. The fact that there is a two step process (kill with high dodge rats, then zombify with high fail rates) makes them even more elusive. I would be really happy to see some tweaks to the system to make zombies more obtainable.

[Ashywolf]

On 9/24/2016 at 12:01 AM, TJ09 said:

I don't really see any compelling arguments here as to why the chance should be increased.

 

There's already four tiers of success chance (day time, night time, 31st of month, Halloween), which match the four states of zombie visibility. Those seem sufficient while presenting enough challenge that you need to dedicate some effort to getting a ton of zombies.

I know I'm quoting you from 2 years ago and your opinions may have changed then, but there are now a great series of zombie dragon types all available on DC.

 

The odds present up until the release of new zombie types were suitable for that case, where just one "type" was available. With some planning it was possible to get a few zombies per Halloween, if you were lucky. Now that we have so many other types available it becomes really, really difficult to make any sort of progress. Even if you get 3 per Halloween, that's 3/80 sprites (16 adults, 32 gendered hatchlings, 16 genderless hatchlings). Trying outside of Halloween just seems too low to even try.

 

I think there may be no compelling argument here. Really, the only justification is that "it takes too long". Each user has their own idea of how much time they should spend trying to get zombie dragons. For me, as unbiased as I can possibly be, I feel it is just too low on average. I believe this because, while Zombies are special indeed, we now have 16 types. When we raise the number of types from 1 to 16, we can't continue keep their rarity as it was.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Ashywolf

[HeatherMarie]

1 hour ago, Ashywolf said:

I know I'm quoting you from 2 years ago and your opinions may have changed then, but there are now a great series of zombie dragon types all available on DC.

 

The odds present up until the release of new zombie types were suitable for that case, where just one "type" was available. With some planning it was possible to get a few zombies per Halloween, if you were lucky. Now that we have so many other types available it becomes really, really difficult to make any sort of progress. Even if you get 3 per Halloween, that's 3/80 sprites (16 adults, 32 gendered hatchlings, 16 genderless hatchlings). Trying outside of Halloween just seems too low to even try.

 

I think there may be no compelling argument here. Really, the only justification is that "it takes too long". Each user has their own idea of how much time they should spend trying to get zombie dragons. For me, as unbiased as I can possibly be, I feel it is just too low on average. I believe this because, while Zombies are special indeed, we now have 16 types. When we raise the number of types from 1 to 16, we can't continue keep their rarity as it was.

 

I feel the need to point out that the present odds-tiers was put into place *after* the zombies got their separate sub-types. The zombie sub-types premiered in May of 2016, while the change to make zombies available year-round with different time-based tiers didn't happen until August of that year. 

 

As for 'compelling arguments' that TJ was looking for... To me, the biggest issue is the strict limitations we have. In my opinion it would be completely different if we had these same odds but were able to try as much as we wanted. Or at least more then 5 times every 2 weeks! Imo there are simply too many different restrictions/limitations/factors here: We have varying degrees of success based on time of day and time of month, we have severely-limited 'kill' slots with long cooldowns, we have a very high rate of disintegration and, in my experience, an even higher rate of dodges. That is a LOT of different things stacked against us. If the rate of success stayed the same but we were allowed to *try* more often, I personally think that would be so much better. Just a random example, if the odds said that I would get one successful zombie (at night) per 30 attempts, that's a *minimum* of 3 months of trying, and that's only if you can actually successfully *kill* 5 dragons every 2 weeks (when 12 dragons in a row dodge, that's difficult on it's own!). 

 

I really really think it would be so much better if the odds were raised a little bit, but honestly at this point I would be totally fine with the odds themselves staying the same if we could *try* more often (and successfully *kill* more often, the dodge rate is sort of ridiculous). 

[Ashywolf]

Fair. I was not aware that zombies were changed that much. I thought the wave of "non-Halloween" zombies was a result of more people experimenting, not raised odds after the introduction of the new sub-types.

 

The compelling argument TJ requested is still not really possible to answer. All we can do is provide our reasons of why we think it is taking too long, and hope that we can convince him that this is the case. Perhaps the best way to convince him is to have him try and get all the zombies himself and test that system. Best case he agrees it is too hard.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I'd like to see both raised, but if it's one or the other I'd prefer higher turn rates over more kill chances. Both equal the same amount of zombies, but one is less wasteful.

[Alrexwolf]

If we had to wait for TJ to make every kind of zombie before something changed, we'd be here forever. 

 

Joking aside though, I really wish the dodge rates were lower.... and the turning chances higher. I don't really dabble in zombies because I always forget they're even there (they don't go to the back of the scroll under "Z" and they only appear in my mountain of dragons at night, so I barely get to enjoy them), but with some tweaks I could see myself trying to get all the ones I like. 

[Ashywolf]

3 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

If we had to wait for TJ to make every kind of zombie before something changed, we'd be here forever. 

 

But if it did take forever, he might be convinced it takes too long and change it!

[StormWizard212]

I'd also like to see the chance of dodging decreased a bit. I think that's a big barrier for a lot of people making zombies. Not only is it challenging already, but it's frustrating to not even get the dead fodder to even attempt it. It certainly turns me off trying because the times that I have I've had a hard time even killing anything to begin with. So I think that would be a useful alternative to increasing the change of successful zombification, but ideally I'd love to see both.

[mpolo]

The last two Halloweens, I've had 0 successes (if I recall correctly -- maybe one). To get a 2-headed leviathan, we have to kill a dragon that is (currently) exceedingly rare. I have only tried once on a 31st, due to how bad my luck is on the best day. (no successes there, either).

 

All in all, a recipe for frustration and just giving up… TJ's comment seems to indicate that it's not necessary to be at night on the 31st, which might make trying then feasible. But the low chance is frustrating. It is somewhat similar to the whole GoN thing, where you go a few years trying to get them. It supposedly makes us value them more, but that's not my experience. I just stopped being frustrated when I could finally stop the summon grind.

 

Couldn't the numbers be nudged just a little without breaking something? I.e. if the chance is currently 1%/2%/4%/8% for day/night/31/Halloween, go up to 2%/4%/8%/16%. I obviously haven't tried to reverse engineer the numbers (wouldn't have enough data to do so anyway), but I could almost believe my guess there, since it gives a good chance for explaining my bad luck…

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

The thing I hate worst is the dodging.... The leviathan thing - I just breed messies specially Not that it's worked so far !

[Ashywolf]

I don't know if anyone would like it but a BSA to kill at a higher rate would actually be interesting.

[Alrexwolf]

I would totally be here for a BSA for Fever Wyverns called "Sting" or "Infect" that had a chance of producing zombies instead of killing, kind of like how vampire's bite works.

 

Wherein a Fever Wyvern would sting a dragon and it would have a chance of dying outright, a chance of being chased into the wilderness by the other dragons on your scroll, or a chance of being turned into a zombie without further consequence. 

[On_Your_Left]

I'm a little surprised TJ hasn't done more to address this. 

 

Actually, to be honest I don't really find what he did say to be satisfying at all. "No compelling arguments"? It seems to me like this thread is FILLED with compelling arguments. There are quite a variety of different players on this thread who all seem to agree that the way zombies are now need to be changed, even if they can't agree on how. And really, it's not up to players to come up with fixes anyways.

 

But when you have so many different people saying that a certain aspect of the game is unappealing or not fun then that's a problem. A game is suppose to be fun, and I think TJ needs to take this a little more seriously than he seems to be, or at the very least communicate more with the community about it. 

[Xathoa]

Oh, I like the Breed Specific actions to the black dragons. I feel that could be helpful.

And I would like all 31sts to be the best day to kill dragons for zombies, but Halloween the best of them all.

[Draconiusultamius]

On 2018-03-18 at 1:01 PM, Alrexwolf said:

I would totally be here for a BSA for Fever Wyverns called "Sting" or "Infect" that had a chance of producing zombies instead of killing, kind of like how vampire's bite works.

 

Wherein a Fever Wyvern would sting a dragon and it would have a chance of dying outright, a chance of being chased into the wilderness by the other dragons on your scroll, or a chance of being turned into a zombie without further consequence. 

That's an interesting idea, but why fever wyverns other than their name?  Assuming the pop culture reference to zombification being some sort of a virus, wouldn't fevers also become zombified if they had the virus?  

A bsa to allow zombified dragons to bite other dragons and increase the chance of zombification seems much more sensible imo.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Draconiusultamius

[Fuzzbucket]

6 hours ago, Draconiusultamius said:

That's an interesting idea, but why fever wyverns other than their name?  Assuming the pop culture reference to zombification being some sort of a virus, wouldn't fevers also become zombified if they had the virus?  

 

 

Not necessarily. There are quite a few animals that carry diseases that do not affect them but which DO affect other animals. In the UK, the grey squirrel, for instance, carries the parapoxvirus  which doesn't affect it, but kills red squirrels.

There are loads of other similar examples.

[Draconiusultamius]

2 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Not necessarily. There are quite a few animals that carry diseases that do not affect them but which DO affect other animals. In the UK, the grey squirrel, for instance, carries the parapoxvirus  which doesn't affect it, but kills red squirrels.

There are loads of other similar examples.

True, but if fevers were immune, then you would never get a zombified fever wyvern.

[Alrexwolf]

I thought each Fever Wyvern had their own strain of bacteria? I.e., they could infect others, but not themselves? I swear I remember reading that.

 

 

EDIT: @Draconiusultamius

"Each Fever wyvern carries a unique and very deadly disease on the spines of its tail."

From the wiki!

 

Although the old descriptions mention bacteria and poison, "deadly disease," is incredibly subjective. A disease could be anything, you know? Because DC exists in a time before bacteria/viruses/etc were known, the deadly disease they carry in-lore right now could technically be anything. In reality, if the creator of Fever Wyverns was okay with it, technically they could have something known as prions on the end of their tails.

 

Let me explain; prions are essentially mis-folded proteins. I -believe- they actually cause something similar to what happens in our zombies in deer; it's called Chronic Wasting Disease, which causes them to become all skinny and waste away, hence the name. Prions "eat" brains, much like zombies do - just on a cellular scale.

 

I would say, if Fever Wyverns had an organ on their tail-tips that intentionally mis-folded proteins a certain way (in a way they inherited from say, their parents, lore-wise, so families could not infect each other, and fever wyverns could not infect themselves, but could still infect other fever wyverns because their mis-folded protein was different and not one the FW's body knew how to deal with), then prions would be a perfect reason for zombies.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Alrexwolf

[Draconiusultamius]

3 hours ago, Alrexwolf said:

I thought each Fever Wyvern had their own strain of bacteria? I.e., they could infect others, but not themselves? I swear I remember reading that.

 

 

EDIT: @Draconiusultamius

"Each Fever wyvern carries a unique and very deadly disease on the spines of its tail."

From the wiki!

 

Although the old descriptions mention bacteria and poison, "deadly disease," is incredibly subjective. A disease could be anything, you know? Because DC exists in a time before bacteria/viruses/etc were known, the deadly disease they carry in-lore right now could technically be anything. In reality, if the creator of Fever Wyverns was okay with it, technically they could have something known as prions on the end of their tails.

 

Let me explain; prions are essentially mis-folded proteins. I -believe- they actually cause something similar to what happens in our zombies in deer; it's called Chronic Wasting Disease, which causes them to become all skinny and waste away, hence the name. Prions "eat" brains, much like zombies do - just on a cellular scale.

 

I would say, if Fever Wyverns had an organ on their tail-tips that intentionally mis-folded proteins a certain way (in a way they inherited from say, their parents, lore-wise, so families could not infect each other, and fever wyverns could not infect themselves, but could still infect other fever wyverns because their mis-folded protein was different and not one the FW's body knew how to deal with), then prions would be a perfect reason for zombies.

I know what prions are and that is an interesting idea (though your idea that prions eat brains isn't technically true, they destroy brain tissue, causing the brain to become 'spongy', hence 'spongifom'.  Proteins can't eat.).  I still don't see how a disease could result in resurrection from death though, but I guess magic?  Otherwise, the explanation seems solid enough.

[Alrexwolf]

It wouldn't be a resurrection from death; it would either outright kill them or turn them into a zombie. It wouldn't be the same as bringing them back, it would be like having them decay, instead.

 

Also, eating at brains is just an easier visual for explanation. Either way, "eat," can mean to destroy something. :x

[angelicdragonpuppy]

11/11 fails on the day with the second highest chance of success :/

 

@TJ09 with so many zombie sprites the current ratios are really not fun. They’re tedious and wasteful and make success feel more like a relief from agony then something to actually celebrate. Every time I get a zombie I don’t think “wooo new dragon,” I think “thank God that’s one less thing I have to murder every month.” There’s a balance between something being difficult but rewarding and something being outright aggravating. The current zombies, with 15+ forms, super low turn rates, super high dodge rates, and such a low cap on kills, fall very much in the latter.