Monster/Zombie/Horror Tournament Discussion/suggestions

Ginja Ninja

Votes and Logic I'd imagine,similar to the horror tournament only in more of a "Top Trumps" kind of way.

instead of who would kill who,it could be who would survive longer,who would d*ck the other competitor over first,who would be a better evader/scavenger vs a fighter

or you could do it in a sort of Left 4 Dead kind of fashion,they both need to go a certain distance fighting the horde and the winnner would go through.This would take into consideration the speedier/wilier ones instead of which one has the biggest boomstick to munch through the horde.

Á la: James bond,while tricky and a very accomplished combatent would more than likely lose to Jason bourne as he is a much more cunning and able to think on his feet,as well as being a fitter/more skilled fighter.However the new bond has been seen to make a good chase against a free runner in the last film,so he coul dpossibly evade the others quite well.

did any of that make sense?

Micky Dolenz

ok, so there would be 2 contestants in the same battle but instead of fighting each other, they fight a horde?

For Example, James Bond V horde in location x

V's
Jason Bourne v Horde in location y

DakotaYoda

So - would you have a list of 20 characters - 10 horde-types - 10 locations?
As an example of ratios anyway.
And would the horde have its own type??

Mahatma coat

I suppose a good pilot project for this would be which of the James Bonds would be the best Zombie hunter, sorta a bond mini tournament

Lets see there are 7 bonds so we need 7 bond type locations

Train (from Russia with Love)
Large Underground Mine (View to a Kill)
Giant underground Lair of Evil Overlord (doctor No)
Aztec temple ( Licence to Kill)
Crocodile farm ( Live and Let die)
Fort Knox ( Goldfinger)
Siberian radar station ( Goldeneye)

and then what?? We pit Random bonds in random Locations and see how they do???

Kess73

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

All good ideas Kess. I wonder how you could rate the competitors against eachother to get a winner.

You would not have to pit them directly against each other as people would be voting as to whether they win or die in a set scenario. They die and they are out.

Whether they win or lose is based on the skills that character is known to have, and the only weapons etc they could use would be things realistically found in the location they are placed in.


To mix it up we could have two types of zombie, the shufflers and the sprinters. The location only gets one type, but there would be five times as many shufflers allowed than there would be sprinters.

So say a scenario could be Jason Bourne in a supermarket against 100 sprinters. People would discuss if Bourne would survive and kill the sprinters. If he survives they could say how and what he uses.

If he dies they would say how.

Use the same rules as before in terms of voting, the first to six wins or failing that the vote that is in the lead after 24 hours.


The next fight could be someone like Dutch or John McClane in a hotel on the 10th floor facing 500 shufflers with the lifts down and no fire escapes.

Kiith

I think they would need to be given some weapons tbh. Even Jason Bourne will find it tough to kill 100 sprinters without at least having some sort of weapon. Maybe do the random weapon, or whatever weapon they are most seen with (PPK for Bond etc...)

I like the idea though.

DakotaYoda

Yeah I agree - a weapon of some kind would be a good thing to define. Either make it completely random or you'll have to pick only characters that have iconic weapons - Indy Jones and his whip; 007 and his Walther PPK, etc.

cyberwolf77

Would Ash have his boomstick and chainsaw? Also do we limit how much ammo each character has available to realistic levels or go with the movie physics of having plenty of ammo without being slowed to a crawl by the sheer weight of it?

Mahatma coat

OOOOOOOOHHHHHH Ultimate Crossover

Ultimate AntiZombie bond weapons :D:D

a big box of them shark explodin darts for me please

Kess73

Kiith wrote: »

I think they would need to be given some weapons tbh. Even Jason Bourne will find it tough to kill 100 sprinters without at least having some sort of weapon. Maybe do the random weapon, or whatever weapon they are most seen with (PPK for Bond etc...)

I like the idea though.

That just it though, take away any weapons that are associated with so called bad ass movie characters and have it that they can only use things that could realistically be in the location they start in.


Take my earlier example of Bourne in a supermarket. Surely there are literally 100's of things a character with his training could use as weapons there.

Giving a movie character the weapon or weapons associated with him/her in their films makes it a bit too easy.

He could be in a hospital with the 100 sprinters or it could be 500 shufflers. Again there are literally 100s of potential weapons and loads of places to hide, climb onto etc. Plus we could take it that the 100 sprinters/500 shufflers are spread out and when the scenario starts they are unaware of the movie character being there. So the game is to evaluate what the character would do in order to get from where he/she is (the furthest point from the one exit) to the exit to escape without being bitten.

Kess73

cyberwolf77 wrote: »

Would Ash have his boomstick and chainsaw? Also do we limit how much ammo each character has available to realistic levels or go with the movie physics of having plenty of ammo without being slowed to a crawl by the sheer weight of it?

Movie weapons and unlimited ammo would make it too easy for some characters I think. Any character with a firearm could then just climb to a point above the zombies and just pick them all off with the unlimited ammo.

I think it is more of a challenge to try to argue why they would survive (or not survive if you think they would die) using their experience, skills, and whatever would come to hand in the location irl.

DakotaYoda

Totally cool w/ not having any weapons - let them scour their environment to come up with weapons.

Will force commentators to be creative in their posts too and will allow for many different takes on the idea.

Micky Dolenz

Ok, so can we be clear so.

It would be one person against a Zed horde in a given location with specific tools/weapons?

so Battle one would be Bond v Zeds in location x. He either wins or loses?

and not

Battle one, Bond v zeds and Bourne V zeds, where only one can survive?

does any of that make sense? :P

DakotaYoda

Makes sense yes - but I was understanding there would be 2 characters in each battle.

My question - would both characters face the same kind of horde and be in the same location?


If we do only 1 character at a time we could vote a simple ye or nay - but it would make a tournament a bit tough.

Micky Dolenz

Also who's going to run it?

DakotaYoda

ahem..... forum moderator.... ahem.....

Micky Dolenz

Doctor Doom? :P

DakotaYoda

Uh - no.

Micky Dolenz

I don't mind helping as long as I fully understand the game.

Maybe have a trail version? if it's too complicated and full of different elements, it may alienate some posters from voting.

Ginja Ninja

Just a trial run to see if the format fits:

Jason Bourne

VS


The Sprinters[100]

IN

The Supermarket


While out doing his groceries the agent stumbled across an informant,after disposing of this spy in a back room,Bourne emerges at the rear of the main store to find a rather large crowd of angry looking zombies waiting for him.

As this was a relatively civilian trip has 1 Glock 17 [13 bullets] in his Jacket pocket.The Zeds have not seen him,yet.

Micky Dolenz

cool, will have a think about it and post after work stuff is over.

cyberwolf77

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Also who's going to run it?

Once I finish the one I doing over in The Noc forum, I may be persuaded

Kess73

cyberwolf77 wrote: »

Once I finish the one I doing over in The Noc forum, I may be persuaded

Yaaay I shall be waiting with questions, and my ever willingness to argue a point. :p:p

cyberwolf77

Kess73 wrote: »

Yaaay I shall be waiting with questions, and my ever willingness to argue a point. :p:p

Happiness and joy fills my heart. Any other volunteers?

Micky Dolenz

For now, take at look at Ginja's example and argue it out.


I think Bourne would simply slip away unseen and disappear. :P.

cyberwolf77

yeah, he probably would slip into the back room and find a window to punch out and escape. Why fight, when you can escape

Mahatma coat

Escapes to what tho????

as we all know, if it gets to a situation where there are 100 Sprinters inside the Shop you can be fair sure that yer Foooooooooked should you go outside, Bournes Superior Training would probably see him pointyise a Mop handle or some other long stick for Brain stabbing, then clambour up to the top rack of the shelves and take them out in groups, Bonus style points for spikin the stick into the Head of a Z and then Polevaulting from one aisle to the next. He wouldnt be Daft enough to Shoot at them unless it was a last resort

cyberwolf77

You raise an interesting point sir. Do we decide that victory must be achieved by killing all the zombies only, or escape to a predetermined safe point elsehwere

Mahatma coat

The Question is
Who is the greatest Zombie Hunter/Killer
Not
Who's the Biggest Girlyman

:D:D

Ginja Ninja

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Question is
Who is the greatest Zombie Hunter/Killer
Not
Who's the Biggest Girlyman

:D:D

I'd agree with this logic,otherwise it'd be some free running fanatic that would win.We're looking for REAL MEN or Alice.