Why Slower Zombies Are Deadlier

[@compilererror2836]

look any project zomboid player in the face and tell them “sprinting zombies are less dangerous”

[@Dazedloon1776]

That was my first thought when I read the title of this video 😂

[@hxfrg]

lmao real

[@iPlayGamesX]

They literally are. There are less of them!

[@WestinsChannel]

PZ can actually be a really bad example because zombies will just keep respawning in areas they have been cleaned out of, because reasons.

[@Montlev]

@@WestinsChannel only in apocalypse mode, in sandbox you can disable spawn altogether, it's what I always do

[@deppo436]

Everyone knows the most effective way to combat any type of zombie is through botanical warfare.

[@eiyobang8585]

Get a row of sunflowers first.

[@elizathegamer413]

based on what this video is implying, is the snow pea actually bad?

[@xtremeyoylecake]

FR

[@North_Red_Dark_Academia]

I prefer fungal

[@chrisk6637]

​@@elizathegamer413oh SHΙT

[@yoster39]

You're forgetting 1 main issue, if zombie bites are the only vector, basic metallurgy and armor production, like a combination of chainmail and plate armor, would make you almost impossible to get killed by slow zombies. And I'm pretty sure they would get extremely popular should they be needed like that. Meanwhile zombies can't adapt like that. Sure, in the rare case someone armored gets zombified its harder to take down, but nothing an explosive can't deal with.

[@rugamcgrill1092]

I feel an armored zombie would be even less of a treat, having their contagious bits encased in a protective layer

[@WestinsChannel]

More armor is likely to just get you killed faster in a zombie outbreak. The more armor you wear, the heavier you are, the more everything is going to exert you. Believe me, try room clearing like the houses quickly with just a rifle, an armored vest and a helmet. You get winded quick. Additionally, more armor is going to make you more confident, more confidence equals putting yourself in more danger, if you survive, you become more confident... Or you don't, in which case , that was that.

[@norrecvizharan1177]

​@@WestinsChannel "Try room cleaning with just a rifle, an armored vest, and a helmet" The "to be fair" aspect is that modern armor is far less optimized and more exhausting to wear than medieval armor, really. All of that weight's concentrated on the head and back, instead of how plate armor spreads it all out along the body, to where you'd just simply tire out more easily so long as it's properly fit. If anything, 16th century armor will basically render you almost invincible to bites so long as the gear stays intact (which it should, considering it's meant to weather a total melee storm, including grappling with other soldiers), so even if you're pinned, others can just stab the zombies off. One could also argue that the "more armor = more confidence" point isn't applicable because the same would literally happen regardless of armor, as people would become confident in running around with simple clothes on. Best case scenario is to just wear some pieces of steel or leather, prioritizing the areas that are most likely going to be bit like the forearms, hands, and lower legs, as having full coverage is going to tire out anyone who doesn't already naturally exercise. But either way, more armor is better than no armor, because while running around at max energy and mobility is good, all it takes is one simple little slip up for it to be a death sentence, whereas armor provides much higher chance of survival in case of anything going wrong, and simultaneously keeps you safe from other sources of injury.

[@stm7810]

or a bullet, like the reason soldiers don't wear armor is it doesn't work.

[@Jewel122580]

​@@WestinsChannelby the time a zombie enters melee ranges two things have gone terribly wrong and its one of two A. You ran out of ammo, cant retreat due to being cornered, and must engage in melee(in which case, having knight armor is actually more beneficial than modern armor) B. You are surrounded(you are fucked no matter what) by the horde, because you are inside a building without more than two exits or a second story. In both instances, you would have a higher chance of surviving by simply having knight armor compared to modern armor, and maybe a improvised weapon or just having spiked gauntlets. This is assuming you aren't in a group, which is really stupid, because actual good knight armor needs someone very skilled at making it + your measurements and i doubt a human would survive long without sustainable food which might require other skills that'll take months to years just to learn. In short; knight armor is both lighter and better to use in a zombie apocalypse than modern armor + having slow zombies get within melee means you've done something really stupid or something has gone so fucking wrong that the zombies aren't the main issue anymore.

[@tickytickytango5634]

Consider the possibility that humans are capable of: Not moving randomly Setting up barricades to control zombie movement Attacking zombies in a way that does not risk being bitten Taking out large groups of zombies at once So maybe, just maybe, humanity isn't doomed?

[@levibarns7576]

Well. What type of zombies are we talking about here? Fast, slow, smart, completely mindless, or a mix of some or all of those?

[@josevictorribeirolisboa7576]

Faster zombies will break their own legs and tendons due to sprinting without a break. Also you can setup sharp wire traps, where simply running at them with enough speed would decapitate or severely wound them. Imagine wiring an entire pine forest.

[@themelancholyofgay3543]

faster zombiess at the initial outbreak...

[@Norrsky]

Then they become slow zombies

[@sussyslurp]

On HBO's The Last of Us an elderly and disabled woman is regenerated by the fungus. In #ALIVE the infected chose not to kill potential hosts, they leave them intact so that they can be infected. If cordyceps really took over humans it'd probably do that as well. This component is absent from the living zombies test scenarios. I imagine it would be the worst scenario.

[@sussyslurp]

Also patients with encephalitis are weak, probably flailing at victims. I doubt they could easily kill a host.

[@Watcher_Mira]

Who says they don’t have breaks? It’s like people saying zombies don’t drink water and would die like why not? I’m not saying higher brain function to use tools like cups but still, I can picture zombies drinking from lakes. It’s all just basic animal intelligence, the idea to stop when tired isn’t that far fetched. Perhaps my zombie image is a lot more horrifying.

[@ZedTheThrid]

The issue with these models is that the zombie apocalypse is too complex for it. If a city goes bust, that's not 20million zombies. That's a city about to be hit with a nuke, unless the city's country doesn't have access to ones. Water is also an issue, can zombies swim? Can warships cruise the coast line and draw zombies into a meat grinder? Depends on the country. Amongst the initial infected, is it mostly civilians or high ranking military/governments?

[@butlazgazempropan-butan11k87]

First you have to as what type of zombies are you dealing with. Are they corpses controlled by some kind of magic ? A type of fungus that can control human body ? or some kind of virus that makes humans very agressive.

[@butlazgazempropan-butan11k87]

Also, how smart are they, can they decompose or starve and eat eachother, will they wander aimlessly or gather into bigger groups, Can other animals get infected ? This stuff is a lot more complicated than a lot of people think.

[@ZedTheThrid]

@@butlazgazempropan-butan11k87 exactly

[@dannyphandom]

I think this is just an issue with how we view models, I think the best way is to honestly throw away the actual numbers. No one is claiming models can accurately predict anything, but they can demonstrate trends and relationships well. If we look at the original Munz study, no one should take it seriously when he says all the humans would die in just 4 days. What we should take away from it is that quarantining didn't delay as much as the coordinated aggressive attacks. Honestly just take a look at something that (in theory) should be easy to model, who will win the election? Just ask a lot of people a question. But we all know without asking everyone, the results of the poll won't be that accurate. But as time goes by, maybe you could take multiple polls and see overall trends increasing or decreasing when a politician does this or that to know what they should or shouldn't do to increase votes.

[@OnePlayer480]

Knowing politicians, nobody's going to nuke anything out of fear of sparking WW3 because the taboo of nuclear weapons would dissapear if ONE is used even if the country uses it against itself, as it is borderline mathematically impossible for no humans to be alive at the outbreak zone, at least 2-3 digits worth of people would still be alive either in buildings, underground or some doomsday bunker/fortified place. Dwindling numbers as time goes on and on but it would be nearly impossible for it to drop from 2 digits in a city. Much less in its outskirts. The moment those 2 digits get nuked, the moment everyone else anywhere else justifies using nukes and other banned weapons to solve issues that they deem as "seems unsolvable due to civilian presence but nukes are instantaneous so it's mercy or something" and they would justify it "because X did it first!, and it worked", and sooner or later, someone would use nukes to solve a military issue. Which is why again, nobody wants to use nukes. The more likely outcome is that, unless the virus is some airborne super-magical undead evolving zombie variant creating BS, is that armed forced would enter cities, lure zombies into kill zones and squash them with tanks and other heavy vehicles as they literally run to their deaths by heading straight for an armoured line that isn't even going to fire, it's just going to make them pulp. Even with the "headshot only" rule, the trauma from being run over by a standard sized sealed armored vehicle would be enough to destroy most human brains, it would get squeezed into mush. Even if the head survives, it won't be able to do anything but limp or move the muscles of the head and be unable of proper locomotion. For reference, the above mentioned strategy IS the U.S. strategy for zombies, well, not really, it's the strat in case a "super fast and super contagious strain of rabies spreads across a populated area", because legally they can't put on paper "Anti-zombie plan", but they can write it down as "Plan against extensive rabies (or similar) outbreak"

[@dallastheheister2765]

I believe that the raccoon city version is the most realistic depiction of how the zombie virus would be dealt with.

[@dannyphandom]

I'd agree that the boom boom (my previous response wasn't posting through, maybe for using the other word) is the best way, as quarantining is pretty much useless. But I'm also a big fan of the Dying Light parkour/guerilla style for the one on one fights

[@jeusmarcomascarina4102]

​@@dannyphandomthe problem is the old zombie's are deceased and mostly created by Necromancer. Old zombie are realistic. New zombie's are rather sick or mutants not dead. Walking dead before is dead and then they become ork status now.

[@literallyinsanelycool28]

what a weird way to say the WWZ book

[@Captain23rdGaming]

@@literallyinsanelycool28 really wish we got a remake of that movie with someone actually following the book hell id settle for a series

[@literallyinsanelycool28]

@ would be nice if HBO or Amazon did it

[@3_iq_individual]

the sprinter ripping me apart because i accidentally pressed q: (project zomboid moment)

[@PurposefullyIneloquent]

That's why the T-Virus from Resident Evil makes for such a terrifying zombie plague scenario. It starts off with slow zombies but just like how humans can survive an injury and move on, some of the zombies when damaged will mutate further into Crimson Heads and then you get the runners. It gives us both to worry about. Even disregarding B.O.W.s it'd be a tall order to survive an outbreak if it spreads past a convenient nuking diameter.

[@SCH292]

Resident Evil changed the zombie plague scenario. "Mutant zombies" class. Later other zombie franchises started to do their own "mutant zombie" class. 28 days later came up with the "runner" infected idea and later everybody started to add "the running thing" into their zombie variant. The Walking Dead introduced the "noise attraction" and everybody started to do that too. Now we have..zombies that can run, mutant zombies that can run and they are attracted to noises in most video games.

[@BLET_55artem55]

​@@SCH292how could you forget the TANKS? These massive, illogically sturdy, fast and strong blobs of rage?

[@Antibot01]

@@BLET_55artem55 OMFG IT'S A TANK!!!

[@LarryTheTugaGamer1511]

​​@@BLET_55artem55Don't forget the bombers! Obese infected that explode into gastric acid whenever they want!

[@jeremy.N]

I feel like humans should start with a randomly determined chance to fight back (maybe normal distributed so you can still pick a mean value and variance for testing). Then Humans with a higher chance to fight back also have a higher chance of survival and would only get taken down by the fast zombies later.

[@dannyphandom]

That's honestly a fantastic idea. If I run it again, I'll definitely think about it! Ideally I could even have a poll to ask people how often they would fight and assign them a human to have that chance the whole run

[@atlasthespy2707]

@@dannyphandom I think polling people may lead to inaccuracies, as most people do not actually know what they would do in a situation like this, but there are many factors that would influence outcomes. here's a few things to consider 1: access to defenses Natural defenses especially, mountains, valleys, or man made defensive structures like Castillio de san Marcos in Florida or Fortress of the Orsini, Italy 2: access to military any area with a standing garrison of trained soldiers, militia men, or any sufficiently seasoned and resourced tactical group is most likely secure, proportional to the number of (and quality of) soldiers 3: access to weaponry. self explanatory really, hangus clargbarg from nowhere alabama is going to be safe because he has paranoia, eighty guns, and ten thousand years of bullets. 4: regional culture if you have an especially violent regional culture, this would also severely reduce the tactical threat of the zombies. While I understand that all of this would be way too difficult to accurately model, I think geography is at the very least worth considering, as zombies can't exactly drive, and people probably won't be driving out of town after the zombie apocalypse begins.

[@dannyphandom]

@atlasthespy2707 you are definitely right about the inaccuracies, but it would provide a nice variation in a more organic way than a normal distribution. And as you pointed out, these all play important roles. All we can really expect out of a model is to show us interesting trends and maybe prove a concept or two, nothing truly accurate. But I think as we get more accurate (including everything you mentioned) we would end up having more favorable outcomes for humanity

[@phantomaviator1318]

@@dannyphandom As more humans fall, ramp up the chance for humans to fight back is another good suggestion

[@DigitalEWhore]

Slow zombies. Yes, you could probably rig up wires and traps that would destroy fast zombies, but all it would take is one recently made zombie somewhere i dont have traps to outrun me

[@Gr3nadgr3gory]

Traps take setup time. This is like asking if batman can beat superman. Sure, if he has time to prepare. Not if it's a random encounter.

[@sirteddyIII]

The conclusion statement is rather misleading. if the optimal zombie speed is around 70-80% of human speed thats feels very disingenuous to say slow zombies are more deadly when in media, slow shambling zombies likely don’t exceed even 50% human speed. Interesting research, but I think the conclusion needs better wording to avoid misinformation.

[@AtticusKarpenter]

Come to think, there is not many media with "walking" zombies. They either shambles so that they can never catch a walking human unless corner him, or run like sprinters

[@GrubGrubGrubGrub]

0:25 watching this video with rimworld running in the background and it took me too long to realize that the ping was from the video and not like a quest notification

[@thatboykriss2313]

Theres a big hole in your theory of fast zombies u said that them being fast would make them too lethal and unable to spread the infection. But how does speed = lethality? Wouldn’t a slow zombie rip someone to pieces the same as a fast one? And If the Zombies are only trying to infect victims the fast zombies would definitely be more effective at that

[@thatboykriss2313]

P.s. when u mentioned the 3 different variables I feel like it should also be mentioned the idea of being bitten but also killing the zombie that bit u

[@RandomMackem0069_Official]

Faster zombies are more dangerous in the initial outbreak but overtime due to the non stop adrenaline rush, their bodies would start to deteriorate at a rapid pace while walkers will stay for much long due to the low energy consumption

[@comyuse9103]

they'd also get separated from groups faster and get targeted first. assuming they aren't acting with animalistic intelligence

[@soundrogue4472]

Right which is why sloths are deadly! Right?

[@dannyphandom]

They could take this world anytime they want, we only live because of their mercy

[@OnePlayer480]

Sloths don't really want to attack humans. The main issue with zombies is that it is a health and military concern mixed together in the arguably worse way possible. You could consider it the theoretical step before using conventional modern biological weapons (everything's dead in minutes and the earth where it hit is practically tainted for millions of years). At least with a zombie you just torch the body and wait 2 weeks before the infection dies out wherever the zombie and its remains where. With a modern biological weapon, there's only escape unless you have some highly advanced and well equipped clean up crew and hardware to repeteadly torch and sterilize the area, also decades long ban on inhabiting or walking past said land. Because it ain't safe yet. We do similar things already to people who walk past highly irradiated or chemically dangerous areas.

[@soundrogue4472]

@OnePlayer480 if slow moving targets were a threat, we would use slow jets and slow soliders

[@stevenle9960]

@@soundrogue4472 you didn't watch the video lmao. His point is that slow zombies are more likely to leave people alive but infect them, causing the rate of infection to increase. Obviously faster zombies are more deadly in individual encounters

[@soundrogue4472]

@stevenle9960 zombies are only theortical, any number of factors can change how deadly something is. A slow zombie can't cross large gaps/ canyons. A fast zombie can clear large distances. A city sure but again you could easily build a ditch for slow zombies to get stuck. Slow zombies give prepare time. Slow zombies give you time to reloading and or gather them together. A fast zombie, not so much.

[@oscaranderson5719]

the L4D mixture of slow zombies + specials could work, since slow zombies would get mulched by (medieval) infantry tactics but fast zombies wouldn’t get many initial infections. the problem with slow zombies is the attacker/defender ratio is horribly lopsided against them, and once the population musters a response zombies will trade far more bodies for far fewer infections. slower diffusion would also mean an easier time isolating them.

[@comyuse9103]

until you take into account that about a quarter of the population is so damn stupid they'd go out to get bite on purpose because it was just a hoax bro.

[@nortonimahouse]

I'd like to note that this assumes all humans who fight back are stuck with melee weapons as their only option. I do wonder how ranged weapons like guns would change the game.

[@chestnut4860]

The "three outcomes of interacting with a zombie" is missing what happens when you kill the zombie but get bitten.

[@dannyphandom]

You are right, it's just irrelevant for my model because I always have humans go first then zombies. So we don't see a case where the human kills the zombie and then gets infected

[@general_drakon773]

I think something important missing from this is fire. Fire makes getting a large KD from slow and stupid zombies trivial, because if you can get one zombie burning it'll mindlessly pass it on to its brethren. If you can outpace the zombies at a walk and draw the surrounding population to you, the result is a lot of dead zombies at a very low cost making that "hit them harder" part much easier. When the zombies become fast enough that you can no longer kite them for the full duration of the burn, they become a lot deadlier. Faster zombies also make retreating more difficult, and would force you to expend more energy in general. Ofc, there are factors that can nerf fire like wet weather or tight spaces, but I think the impact is so massive that even if you could only pull it off occasionally it still cant be ignored. A lot of Project Zomboid videos will ban the use of fire just because it makes the challenge too easy. TLDR: Burn slow zombie good. Make fast flaming zombie bad

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks for the input! But I'd have to disagree. Fire itself really isn't as deadly as games or media make it out, there's a reason the US military stopped using flame throwers as weapons. People are about 60% water, we really don't burn easily. Even the majority of fire deaths are caused by the inhalation of the smoke as opposed to the burns. The zombies would have to be covered in continually covered in accelerants such as gasoline, as undead zombies wouldn't be damaged enough to be killed from one burning. This could be viable in a building where debris could trap them while burning to do enough damage. Additionally, even in my slowest scenario, the deadliest zombies are just 76% the speed of humans. So if the humans are capable of 15mph sprints on average, the zombies are 12mph.

[@general_drakon773]

I definitly agree they wouldn't just instantly drop and die, which is why you'd need to monitor them for an extended period of time, potentially hours. If its just a wood fire you may have to make it very large or repeatedly stab them with flaming stakes. You have to keep them away from stuff you dont want burned for the duration, and make sure the horde is tightly packed so the intial fire can actually spread, all while keeping an eye out for any zombies drawn to your shenanigans. Im not so sure the discontinuation of flame throwers is a point against fire, since their relativly short range weapons that have to carry fuel and are a pr disaster. Grenade guns are banned for humanitarian reasons, not lack of combat effectiveness. Even if they dont stop from the burns, its probably easier to deal with a half cooked zombie than a store fresh one. All that said, it would definitly be harder to do a fire plan at the start when corpses are fresh. But what about clothes and time? Clothes could act as a free temp accelerant, and as time passes zombies will likely drop in that water percentage. Survivors will also have the time to plan and think of ways to take out hordes after the intial outbreak, especially if zombies are slow, and the most populated areas are likely to have tons of gasoline to get the first blaze going. Should probably mention that I am thinking of getting a large fire going, then pulling zombies near and around it until they catch fire. This requires you to have zombies so slow that you can outpace them for hours on end, so this would struggle with even just jogging zombies. Even if this still requires more setup than guns or melee, I think its worth it. Guns run out of ammo, are loud(damaging ears and drawing zeds) and are hard to produce in end times, and melee is risky for obvious reasons. But when fire kiting, you can keep your distance and any extra zombies just cost extra time to burn, so I think its worth the prep time. Obviously this is introduces whole lot more factors than your simulation, but I haven't done that much work so who am I to complain 😅. What would you think about a factor that makes survivors more effective over time, or something like a randomized chance towards progressing to a mass clear event?

[@dannyphandom]

You are totally allowed to complain, and you make great points and are respectful! You're right about there being many reasons the flamethrower was discontinued, the point I was getting as was I think that is they were more effective those reasons would be ignored... For clothes, I think they would help a bit but not much to really make a significant difference. If we are talking undead zombies, you are also completely right about them slowly drying out and being easier to burn but for living ones we'd expect to stay the same. If we are talking a large, planned fire you are completely right. Large planned efforts or human ingenuity could always turn the tide, they are just nearly impossible to account for. You should think of my simulation (and most to be honest) as just board games that can express some general concepts. A factor that makes the survivors more effective over time is a great idea and totally doable! Even with some effort on my side, I could get human cooperation to an extent and even have some people from the start be designated zombie hunters. My goal was just to show that after a certain point, speed itself isn't all that matters for the zombie outbreak. If I ever redo the simulation, I will definitely take your points into account!

[@whitehawk4099]

​@@dannyphandomA large part of it that cuts down on the effectiveness is that flamethrowers, molotov cocktails, and similar are short ranges weapons and the opponents have guns. When the opponents are limited to melee, that part of the consideration drops away entirely.

[@N0rth_Star]

@@dannyphandom i feel like zombies would be dried out also since they arent needing water to survive they're just walking human flesh beef jerkys

[@This_side_of_the_internet]

It saddens me that people tend to ignore tanks when it comes to fight against zombies. I mean, what can 5000 zombie horde do against 4 tanks and support team? Even if tanks will use all their ammo and fuel, which is poor tactics BTW. So what? The tank crew can just turn on Linking Park on max and attract zombies that "survived" the onslaught - while their buddies retreat for backup. It's not like zombies can chew through armor...

[@nattythepanda4692]

Tanks are amazing, but also no matter what tank, Leopard, M1 Abrams, whatever, they would have a tough time just driving through 5000 zombies. Against a small little horde? Sure, there wouldn't be much gunk and parts in the tracks and gears and such, but after a while, the tank would fail one way or another. Also, their cannons are meant to fight other tanks, sure, a modern round is absolutely gonna obliterate a zombie, or quite a few zombies in a line, but they're meant mostly for penetration, not general infantry. What IS underrated though is artillery. As far as I can remember, because it has been a WHILE since I looked into it so take this with a grain of salt, the M109 Paladin with a high-explosive round can fire up to 18kms away with as little as 10 meters of error, that can easily wipe out hordes and hordes of zombies from such a huge distance that you never have to worry about zombies.

[@This_side_of_the_internet]

@@nattythepanda4692 You forgot about machine guns. Those are great against targets like zombies. And you can hoard a LOT of ammo inside a tank. Also, mines would make a pretty decent job. And flamethrowers. Lots and lost of flamethrowers. Or you can dig several trenches and fill them with spikes, Yeah, one regiment of well-trained soldiers will make a short of a whole army of traditional zombies.

[@wettoaster34]

mosquitoes can carry diseases, some well known. if humans of all species can carry such a thing as a literal zombie virus, it’d be pretty safe to assume mosquitoes could do the same thing and end up dooming all of us.

[@watch.v-dQw4w9WgXcQ]

@@nattythepanda4692 oh you silly goober - you really think Grapeshot stopped existing? we never stopped in finding way to obliterate people and then mass-producing it. Hell just basic HE munitions is more than enough..... especially since the ACTUAL design of a tank is Infantry Support.... and it does this by mauling infantry that isn't hiding behind things.

[@BLET_55artem55]

​@@This_side_of_the_internetthere's one problem with the trenches - Zombies would just pile up, eventually creating a bridge with their bodies. Too much work for little advantage

[@petersmythe6462]

Ah. Zombie movement isn't necessarily random walk at a fixed size. A herd of 10000 zombies probably does about 100 times less random turning than a single zombie. If your zombies form groups that move together, following one another and occasionally fusing or breaking apart due to interaction with other herds or the train, you should expect zombies moving as a group cross much larger distances before walking in circles, because the idiosyncrasies of an individual zombie's movement matter less when it's a division-sized unit of zombies.

[@igodreamer7096]

I want to see a chart based on Resident Evil - Outbreak File #2 scenario: -Everyone is already infect without knowing (yet you ONLY become a zombie after death and/or serious injuries) -Every complex animal is capable to develop as zombie (if isn't already one) -The human zombies are slow, but the animal zombies retains their own/original speed regardless -Zombies have the chance of evolving over time and mutante even further beyond

[@OttoKreml]

I think the biggest problem is that most humans are going to be either fighting or running. Maybe more humans would run, or more would fight, but certainly after the first few days humans aren't going to be moving randomly. And that probably means that individual zombie combat prowess will become more important over time.

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

Remember there were even fast ones at the beginning remember the graveyard holding the brick chasing the car tool usage with a fast zombie that broke all the rules but everyone forgets about that

[@dannyphandom]

Yeah, I honestly think people kind of block that out. We see those Romero films as the beginning of the modern zombie but forget the aspects where they were still pretty different. They've also been inconsistent across his own films. As you said, there were times his zombies used tools and even a gun, or the scene where the zombie is seen enjoying music

[@jug0572]

@@dannyphandom and that zombie you are refering to is my profile picture! lol, i love the Romero movies so much

[@alextonev3017]

Very underrated channel, keep it up!

[@dannyphandom]

Thank you, that means a lot!

[@alextonev3017]

@@dannyphandom I truly don't get how you only have as many subs and views as you do, the production quality, especially of your most recent video is incredible and as you put it yourself - you were able to trick us into learning about SIR disease modeling using something entertaining like a fictional zombie virus. Videos from which I get to both learn sometihng meaningful, but also be entertained throughout are few and far between but you managed it, and very well at that. So once again, keep it up and thank you!

[@dannyphandom]

I am genuinely grateful for anyone who even watches the video, let alone leaves a positive comment. So thank you for clicking the video, watching it, and giving such kind words. My next video will come out quicker because the motivation this comment has given me. I hope I can continue to improve and that you will enjoy the next video as well!

[@PurpleSnake]

Some zombies only want to eat, others only want to infect. If I remember correctly, the Flu in L4D makes zombies primarily want to infect someone and then move on, but I might misremember. Which could explain why they specifically attack (rather than trying to infect) any resistant humans.

[@alicepbg2042]

The characters we play in l4d are immune. By random chance. They can't infect you.

[@LuizZzZ_]

​@@alicepbg2042 They're not Immune though. The game says they're carriers, they just don't show symptoms, or in other words, they can't die nor turn from the infection, but still, are infected, and just by being near then you can get infected too. That's why every campaign starts with someone turning and crashing the vehicle. (The boat guy is supposed to be another carrier)

[@alicepbg2042]

@@LuizZzZ_ immune people do carry the diseases. they are still immune.

[@LuizZzZ_]

@@alicepbg2042 Actually, immunity and asymptomaticity are very different things. The former, your antibodies act against the disease, fighting it until it gets out of your system and preventing you from getting it again, the later you still have the disease but isn't affected by it. An example of immunity would be after contracting chickenpox, usually you won't get it ever again after the first time, because your antibodies "know" this disease and "know" how to get rid of it from your system.

[@alicepbg2042]

@@LuizZzZ_ I stand corrected

[@alexithymia6288]

What I've gathered from this is: I need to buy more ammo. I could get rid of about 3,000 zombies, assuming every shot took one out. To compensate for those who will choose to run instead of fight, I need to get that number up. Honestly though, if a zombie apocalypse ever did happen and it was like WWZ, I'm punching my own ticket immediately. Walking Dead style of them would be kinda fun, but we'd run into the same issue of the other humans being a bigger threat after a while.

[@BLET_55artem55]

Or you can learn chemistry and go absolute Vietnam mode with self-made gunpowder and weapons. Bad? Equally as dangerous to you? Absolutely! But it's something. Or you can just use bows and arrows... (The gunpowder making skill is still extremely useful for many other reasons tho)

[@locoludwin3228]

I think the math breaks when taking the top contestant of an eating competition as the average for zombie, they are not swallowing a hotdog sized chunk of meat for every bite so just because they move their legs faster doesnt mean their mouths do aswell

[@dannyphandom]

For your first point, you are right. They definitely won't be eating as much as a competitive hotdog eater, its just a decent estimate and I don't think its too far off because we really don't care how much "food" gets in the zombie's stomachs. Even if they aren't eating as much, they will be tearing apart and ripping the body to do so, so the destruction at least is still present. But the speed will affect it. The speed at which zombies move isn't just the legs, their overall body (legs, arms, head and mouth) movements are slowed down proportionally. This is either because of reasons such as rigor mortis or an imperfect central nervous system after infection. If it was just their legs, they could be barely moving while flailing their arms wildly like an undead inflatable arm man (which is probably far more terrifying than anything we should have to imagine)

[@jonasgajdosikas1125]

so I ran a simulation on my own and noticed a pattern: giving the human a chance to retaliate in a zombie encounter significantly impacts the survivability of humans. on a 64x64 grid with 16000 starting humans and 50 zombies it takes humans around 1700 turns to wipe out the zombies with zombie speed at 80% human speed, a 40% chance for an infected human to remove themselves and a 25% chance for a human to directly kill a zombie in a melee encounter

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

6:49 a problem I saw was that it didn't account for corspes that can never raise again, for what ever reason, like I don't think zombies that became part of the removed category can be reinfected

[@austinclements8010]

ill stock up on sunflowers, pea shooters and potato mines just in case

[@bruhgoofyahh9191]

I feel like fast zombies would be more likely to be ambush predators. Everything's fine until a zombie hiding in a bush stars sprinting at you at 45 mph. Slow zombies are just a wall looking in need of a spray of bullets.

[@jug0572]

i guess it just depends on how smart they are, and i feel like most zombies wouldnt be able to form ambush tactics lol

[@5P_OFFICIAL]

Most deadly type of zombie is when even weakest zombie unit is already strong enough to kill human (like dead cells zombies)

[@multey]

If you want to go a bit more extreme it would be something like emitting/touch transmitting variety of them.

[@Cebramik]

Great video, you managed to explain a lot of stuff without much complexity. Though I think that zombie outbreaks are too difficult to model. As far as I understood you basically said fast zombies munch on their victim so the new zombie is less effective (and the reverse for slow zombies). I think that this doesn't need to be true and maybe something called "zombie aggressiveness" could come into play where (all) zombies are X% likely to either munch on their victim or continue their hunt. What this does is that you could have some slow zombies who only look for their next meal and once they have something to eat won't really bother anymore or fast zombies only out to kill and then continue to hunt (or any combination of course). In this case the latter would be the most dangerous while the former would be less dangerous. Also the random movement is good but imo not ideal. Zombies are often scary/ a threat bc there are many of them at once. In a 1-1 fight a human would have solid chances but once there are more it becomes difficult. All in all the video was great to show/introduce the topic but it suffers from the immense scope (just like the mentioned papers)

[@Shoxic666]

All of the best Z outbreaks do not rely on infected hosts to spread. Green flu was airborne, the freaker virus spread on surfaces, Overlord has a zombie STI spread by a succubus, cordyceps uses spores and blacklight physically grew over the place and birthed new creatures to terraform the city.

[@jaxirraywhisper741]

Zombies as an infection is childsplay. Only zombies I would be ever worried would be magically riased by a necromancer. Mostly becuase I would be scared of necromancer.

[@jebediahkerman7672]

Probably the most realistic zombie apocalypse is the project zomboid apocalypse, go check out the game if you dont know what it is

[@adisca2k]

Simply being airborne answers a lot of the plotholes from most zombie media.

[@duncanlemp692]

Lets hope the heli's actually pick up survivors this time

[@omikron6218]

they are laughing at you from the heli. they are just there to fuck with you

[@dannyphandom]

Project Zomboid is a great game, I never played it myself but always watched let's plays of it Yeah, airborne would completely remove the need for transmission and the deadliest zombies would be the fastest and most lethal

[@atlasthespy2707]

@@dannyphandom check out the game "rimworld" and more specifically the "anomaly" DLC, the death-pall, as far as I'm aware it's a nanite swarm that reanimates any and all corpses. I think you might find that while the faster zombies are individually more dangerous, when they start to stick out from the pack, the get gunned down fairly easily, thus making the less exemplary zombies more dangerous. also elephant zombies. it works on animals too

[@TheUzumakin92]

Hurrah 🎉! Glad to see you back!!! Thank for or your new work ❤

[@dannyphandom]

Thank you! Hope you enjoyed it!

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

like most things that depends, slow can have bigger compact buildup but fast can cut off escape routes easier so toss up

[@dannyphandom]

Yeah, as I said it's pretty tough to predict as its entirely situational. The real point to take away from the whole video is that in these certain situations, it can actually be slower zombies that kill faster which is counterintuitive and cool. But minute changes to the situation or setting could change anything

[@SearNRivers]

Just want to start this off by saying this was a good video. My nit pick following this might seem like its said in hostility, but I wanted to clarify up front it's not meant that way. It was interesting to see how you complied all this together, and you presented it just as well as other channels I've seen with way more subscribers. So good on you. But with that said, I'd say the more realistic reason why it's a stretch to compare Covid numbers to a zombie outbreak would be the massive, massive, MASSIVE exaggeration most western governments around the globe made in their reporting of Covid fatality claims. There have been quite a few doctors who have come forward and shared they were mandated by their government (especially in the US) to report any person who died while having Covid as a Covid death; even in situations where the patient having Covid wasn't the result of their death. This isn't to minimize the impact the virus had on the population or anything, I worked in emergency services (county outreach officer) at the time and there were quite a few people who did still actually die from it. But the numbers were also outrageously inflated because of the mandates doctors had when it came to reporting. There were car crash victims, cancer victims, homicide victims, ect who were counted amongst the dead as "killed by Covid" even though Covid was very clearly not what killed them. I'd pick a different low mortality disease to compare numbers to, personally, if you ever built off this video for any reason. Preferably from a time where government propaganda wasn't at an all time high. But that's just me.

[@capt.rezzec300]

This 100% makes me wanna clear out the zomboid map using the 2.5 days method described

[@deleteduser3455]

14:02 kinda sharks are not likely to harm you even if they can. They only go after humans when they are absolutely starving. Where as vending machines entirely wipe out the dumbest people

[@BLET_55artem55]

I wouldn't call ALL people getting injured or killed by vending machines stupid. Electrocutions are a thing

[@theboringrat1024]

I have some questions . So if zombies eat the living does that implies that zombies still burn calories. so if a zombie still needs calories or what ever a human body can provide ,that means that zombies still need something to give them energy. So like how early humans would hunt would the slow zombies save there energy for the fight while the humans tire them selves out while fast zombies use up there energy but end up with weaker attacks. or would slow zombies just endlessly flow humans while humans pick them off as they use up there enrage to a point where they cant die but cant move. or if the zombies cant eat could the same concept of fast zombies destroying the bodies of future zombies you mentioned but the fast zombies destroying there own bodies faster whether by them getting into accidents or them not waiting for there fellow zombies and attacking humans by them selves.

[@dannyphandom]

Great questions! Honestly there's no clear answers anywhere, but we can speculate a bit. The true 100% undead zombies wouldn't have to eat at all. In Romero's films, he established that zombies don't need to eat at all. In fact, even if they do eat their digestive tract was also dead so they couldn't absorb any nutrients anyway. They go over that even zombies with their stomach removed or cut out will still try to eat. In grosser examples, they'll even eat til their stomach explodes. He largely explains it as when the brain revives in this crazy undead state, almost all functions are lost except for the extremely primal urge to feed. But for zombies that are technically alive and are essentially people with a virus, you would probably be right. The faster, more aggressive zombies would need significantly more energy and to constantly feed. Whatever the disease is doing to them, putting them in highly alert state would more than likely put a lot of stress on the body and require a higher metabolism. If slower zombies also had a slower metabolism, they could conserve more energy and even survive longer in between meals, making them not starve out as fast if they were isolated. Essentially you could either burn brighter for a shorter period of time or have a longer lasting, steady flame. But again, how zombies work and where they get their energy (or if its even addressed at all) comes down to the writer and specific work. Attack on Titan, while the titans are definitely not zombies, shares a lot of features with the zombies. The titans want to eat people but don't need to eat or even breathe. Instead, they get their energy from the sun and even "shut down" at night.

[@jonasgajdosikas1125]

@@dannyphandom then if considering that zombies probably don't have some magic source of energy, how would modeling them with a finite amount of energy work? have them consume said percentage every turn?

[@theboringrat1024]

@@dannyphandom I never thought about the titans as zombies but. Thinking about it it makes sense.thanks

[@dannyphandom]

That's a good question, it would definitely be tricky and more of a guess/estimate. The first thing we'd have to do is really work out the timescales. I kept mine pretty vague, essentially just counting turns themselves and not assigning a true time value, then I would guess how much calories zombies would burn in that time frame. I think you could probably make the argument that they burn significantly more calories than people due to being infected, as sick people usually burn more. So if we say they burn 3000 calories a day and humans contain about 130,000 calories, that give them essentially 50 days max to live without food. If we say zombies moving 50% speed have 50% the metabolism, they'd survive 100 days. If we say a zombie at 100% human speed eat can 16 pounds in one instance (12% the human body) they'd get about 15600 calories back, or about 5 days worth. A zombie at 50% could eat 6% and get 7800 calories, or 5 days worth to it as well. So they would recover proportionally, assuming they eat for the same amount of time because corpses revive fast or not interested in anything dead for long. I'd track the caloric level of each zombie starting at 130,000 and tick it down each time step and also a certain amount for every time it attacks a human. Then you could essentially enforce penalties to the zombie's performance as the total calories it has goes down. I'd expect to see faster zombies burn out faster, as everything is great in the beginning when people are plentiful but as time goes on and there are more zombies and less people, they'd starve faster and get weaker. I'd also expect the slower zombies to actually benefit from a hunting party style, since they don't spread out as much and stay closer together, others can benefit more from another using energy to kill and be there for the free dinner. Ultimately, we'd see that if the outbreak was fast and in a short time frame, faster zombies would be fine. But for months? Slower zombies would last a bit longer

[@theboringrat1024]

@@dannyphandom cool

[@taro6219]

heavily appreciate the leroy jenkins mention

[@dannyphandom]

I see you too are an individual of culture

[@tickytickytango5634]

Mathematical models that don't consider the fact that humans would attempt to not die concluding that all humans would die.

[@mozzarellatherat9687]

Dude I started this video really early this morning then stopped to watch the night of the living dead for the first time ever and completely forgot to go back and watch the video. AMAZING movie by the way.

[@dannyphandom]

Glad you enjoyed it! It's a great movie and really changed the game

[@mozzarellatherat9687]

@ sure did

[@rafaelpazosjacob2416]

You didn't have to hide math and statistics in a Zombie video, I LOVE ALL!!!

[@farcryhater]

i don't thing the walking dead zombie will kill more people than one voltile from dying light

[@dorklymorkly3290]

I can't think of anything in this world that has ever been made deadlier by being slower. I can think of many things that become more deadly with speed.

[@arcanineryu]

getting a running start definitely makes for a better climber, meaning ya miss out on a lot of potential safe zones just out of reach of zombies where you could craft a drop spike and just keep dropping something spiked and heavy and tied to a rope on zombie heads.

[@dannyphandom]

Venus fly traps

[@lofwyr5063]

@@dannyphandom Not if you speed them up so they outpace the fly bullet time.

[@dannyphandom]

@lofwyr5063 that's true, you got me there. Zombies that travel at the speed of a bullet are 100% the deadliest

[@harryfromhardtime7397]

superb video how are you not even 100.000 subs is beyond me.(btw I still think faster ones are scarier and deadlier)

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks for the comment! The current goal is just 1000 subscribers, anything more than that is a dream. But it looks like I haven't fully convinced you on my side (and that't totally fair tbh). I do think the fastest zombies will always be the most lethal and the highest kill rate, but that is just on an individual level. I'm talking about a macroscopic view of the whole, because initially faster zombies will eventually produce slower zombies incapable of sprinting, while a balance of slightly reducing the zombie speed allows a perfect mix (depending on the situation of course). What I should have done (or will do if I ever do an update because of great critiques and suggestions from commenters like yourself) is show the average speed of all the zombies and how that actually goes up by decreasing the max speed of the zombies a bit. But again, this is all super situational. Anytime the humans get deadlier by coordinating or using deadlier weapons, the deadliest zombie needs to be a bit faster. Since humans are pretty clever and have big guns, that might mean they need to be as fast as they can. But who knows, this is just a fun thought experiment I tried to prove with a simple model

[@realdragon]

How do ants deal with zombie infection?

[@dannyphandom]

I just looked it up, they are pretty clever. They can clean the spores off other ants before they take root and avoid areas where the fungus is found. If the ants get infected, they quarantine them away from the colony and then avoid the gravesites of the sick ants

[@nameless-not-exist]

I mean,there's just meat lying around,what do you expect?

[@raulgamboa5649]

Really nice high quality video, was expecting a bigger channel, keep up the good work, tho i would advise changing the tumbnail to something a bit more mature (teenage/coleage level), but overall really impresive :D

[@dannyphandom]

Thank you! I also appreciate the advise, I agree with you but I'm just not that good at graphic design haha I'll try and give it some thoughts though!

[@_Podzilla_]

Slow zombies are dangerous when you forget to craft a molotov

[@jug0572]

fire usually kills people via smoke, and zombies dont need to breath

[@_Podzilla_]

@@jug0572 Seems not all people play Zomboid unfortunately. Forgot to add: 🤓🤓🤓

[@jug0572]

@@_Podzilla_ dude, i play zomboid and i play it a lot, im just saying that in real life, molotovs wouldnt kill zombies, or at least not nearly as easy

[@_Podzilla_]

@@jug0572 then the joke flew over your head, man. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you

[@KittyKaiii]

I think fast zombies are good at sweeping down the population of a country in a few days but slow zombies are more consistent at death of survivors

[@CallOfCutie69]

1:53 I wouldn’t say modern zombies crave brains 🧠

[@jug0572]

its actually wrong on both counts lol, "true" zombies never craved brains back then or now, that was just specifically the movie "Return Of The Living Dead" that did that

[@SKai2609]

My first goal in a zombie outbreak where bites are the main method of infection is pilfering some chainmail. Zom 100's idea of using Shark Suits seems like a pretty damn good decision. If anything, I'd get one of those shark suits that covers primarily the arms and upper torso. Too much and I'm too loud and too heavy, and weather conditions will have a much worse effect on my wellbeing

[@edwardayala4314]

I guess it comes down to the really defining factor of “deadlier” to be honest. Running or even jogging zombies could keep running at you and never get tired. Since they have no need for lung capacity and endurance now. Where humans do and eventually, we run out of breath or muscles begin to give out. Sadly someone who hardly goes to the gym or works out might die off pretty quick compared to a walker. Spread of the infection? Well looking at WW:Z, runners obviously spread out so fast, so rapidly that the undead numbers skyrocketed so fast before the fastest response could even get a clue what was going on. I’ll throw in 28 days/weeks later “infected” too. Longevity, now this is where I see walkers being better at. Since they casually walk and use little amount of wear and tear in their path. WW:Z (the book) even shown that they are prone to get into areas where hardly any human activity occurs. Acting like a living mine waiting to be crossed by an unsuspecting person. Additionally in the mental factor: humans aren’t prone to be attentive to things calmly walking. Running catches people’s attention quickly and often as a reactive response. You could even say some people might mistaken them as injured or unwell fellow humans and approach to their doom. Now what I don’t believe is slow moving zombies managing to destroy the fabric of society and civilization is lost. Sure a couple of cities would fall but an entire nation? Let alone a world? WW:Z (book) took a far more realistic approach to it

[@foxpaw474official5]

23:58 The chances for humans shouldnt be that bad. Even not considering firearms, humans can use plenty of weapons, which will increase their combat effectivness several times. Also, bitten humans can (or they will probably have to) go on rampage and kill as many zombies as they can until they turned. That way average human will be very deadly to zombies, and every infected human will actually reduce zombie population

[@JorjIto12872]

Look at a dying light player dead in the eyes and tell them running zombies who can parkour faster than a trained human are weaker than those slow guys only patroling the ground

[@_Pangloss]

Something this video doesn't go over is humanities ability to adapt to the threat and become more experienced at killing them over time

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

A big thing is indeed that a passive zombie would just randomly walk around, while an "active" zombie (one following humans) might accelerate to running speed. And yes, low mortality and long enough incubation is important to spread. At some point there would be a stable population size of zombies. Humans breed more humans, zombies turn humans into zombies, humans eliminate zombies. But do zombies decay at some point naturally? And if they do, could humans just wait them out? In any case one would need to have a safe, zombie-free location for humans to rest, gather resources, and raise children. And I'm not talking about a bunker. More like a village including agriculture, surrounded by a defensive perimeter. That defensive perimeter would need more than just a wall. Possibly a ring hill with a wall on the outside, surrounded by a moat, surrounded by a completely free area at least a mile wide for guards to detect wandering zombies in advance. The whole thing would need enough area not just to supply the farmers, but also guards and other trades. So possibly a community in the size of multiple hundred people.

[@tobithesergal]

im pretty sure if we dropped walking dead zombies into the world, we would have it packed up in an afternoon

[@sofroniomesias9192]

I subscribed because i felt your huge effort

[@Potato-TheKing]

Depends on game fast zombies are more dangerous But in pvz2 (zomboids) is more dangerous the slower version

[@AkisakuLP]

Great video! Although I'm either misunderstanding the simulation part or it appears poorly modeled in my opinion. My main concerns are that you imply standing in the square next to a zombie would be "in reach" to attack/to be attacked. Given ppl can see a zombie and can think about "maybe that thing there could threaten my survival" it's bold to assume for anyone to just walk into its reach. Also, I do feel like the increase in "deadliness" of the slower zombies isn't because they do something better, rather humans running into them or their reach due to them moving every time and zombies sometimes just waiting for humans to attack. I don't feel like the random walk does reflect how people would move even when panicking in that scenario. Otherwise I really enjoyed the video and hope you do grow big on the platform.

[@alicepbg2042]

You kept showing how fast zombies are better than the slow ones... and somehow concluded the reverse?

[@8onnie8oyz]

I'm guessing they were listing how they'd do in the long run.

[@3vines465]

Wales mentioned :) Also amazing video.

[@dannyphandom]

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it! Also Wales has the world's coolest flag, hands down, and really interesting founding myths. I definitely want to visit Cardiff someday!

[@XtreeDMoo]

I think this one is less viable with larger scale, because people and zombies have the context of grouping, and to implement, there would be some factors like the chance to add more people to a group, or the chance to run away given the group size vs the zombie size. A way of implementing this would be for each person to make a decision to act (fight, protect, run, stay in a group, look for zombies ect given a 5ish tile range with the number of zombies and people in that range. Maybe add a disease/zombie spreading change for groups as well to simulate infighting or general loss from disease

[@chaoticsilver8442]

1:45 I wouldn't put 'X's over the bottom three. Plenty of modern zombie interpretations have at least one of those three traits, if not more. I'd suggest just a yellow '--' or something. Something that implies they're not certain and constant aspects. Wheras an 'X' implies they're completely gone. In the walking dead, everyone's infected, you don't have to be bitten or anything. In most zombie media, they're smart enough to know to go to loud sounds/bright lights, even if they don't necessarily see/smell/hear a human there, recognizing the sound as sign that someone at least WAS there. Rather than just wandering aimlessly until they directly see a meal right in front of them. Hence getting things like the scene of World War Z (the movie) where they attack the city because they're partying too loud... Oh, and even just basic object permanence. They don't just stop pursuing you because you closed a door between them and you and they no longer see you anymore. In dead rising, dawn of the dead, project zomboid, etc, you definitely have your classic, slow zombies. Not even mixed with fast ones or any sort of 'special infected'. Dead rising, the main threat is usually just the still-living psychos, and Zomboid is *very* classic zombies, where they're slow, they're weak... But they're many, and they are relentless. Great game by the way. Try out Project Zomboid if you hadn't. Basically, you want something that implies neutrality, rather than negativity. Because there is PLENTY of modern zombie media that still have these traits.

[@dannyphandom]

They are crossed out because they are no longer part of the stereotypical zombie. Sure, there will always be exceptions, but they aren't prominent enough to become the rule. For example, vampires. Some traits have been phased out from the modern image such as not being able to cross running water, turning into a wolf/bat. But others, such as weakness or even death to sunlight persist. Just because Twilight removed it entirely or True Blood made it only applicable to older vampires doesn't mean that the image in the heads of the public has completely shifted. In regards to zombie intelligence, reacting to stimuli is what I meant by mindless. Romero's zombies had essentially ape like intelligence, capable of using tools like a brick to safely break glass or even a gun in one case. For speed, that's what I meant. You could really have either slow or fast, the restriction has been lifted

[@chaoticsilver8442]

@@dannyphandom Ah.

[@chaoticsilver8442]

I'd have some suggestions for potential tweaks to the simulation. For example, when zombies attack a human (or a human attacks a zombie) there should be a chance for either to end up in a different state that isn't just 'dead' for the zombie, or 'infected/bitten', or 'dead' for the human. For example, what if a human fights a zombie, but runs from the fight before they get the kill (or just don't shoot or cut off the head, maybe just not wanting to risk getting up to their fact to chop their head off and risk getting bitten. Maybe something else grabs their attention, like a friend in need, and dealing with this one zombie isn't as much of a priority.) Or for a human, ending up scratched, but not bit. To keep it simple in terms of the simulation, I'd just have these be changes to speed. A runner could be beat up enough that their muscles would be sore or torn enough to make them a walker. Or a walker (or runner) could have their legs broken or cut off making them a crawler (which I'd say, halve their speed again to 25%) Or a human ending up, cutting their ankle or losing their gun, putting them at half 'speed'/strength (Meaning a walker would have a 50/50 chance with them, same as a sprinter would have with a normal human) without leaving them infected. (Hell, maybe the zombie might not even cause the injury directly. Maybe they'd get cut up jumping through a window or something trying to run away from a zombie, and getting cut up by shards of glass. In severe pain and not in good fighting condition, but still alive, and more importantly, not bitten. I'd also argue that, there being more humans in an area fighting the same zombie should increase the human's odds of winning the fight. And maybe even code in humans checking others for bites (If they learn that's what causes it... Okay, actually, whole extra thing then- If a human 'sees' (as in, they're on the same tile, or the tile right next to them) another human who has been bitten turn, there should be a, say, 50% chance that human (assuming they survive their encounter with their friend-turned-face-eater) should learn from that and figure 'hey, being bitten means you turn'. And would start checking others for bites.) What would happen after that could vary- I'd say there should be a chance of the bitten human being just mercilessly put down (or take themselves out), or maybe they could be informed that they're doomed to become one of them, and perhaps try and go out in a blaze of glory, heading up to the nearest zombie (or zombies) so they could fight them, and hopefully take them out, up until they become a zombie themselves. Or maybe the bitten human could fight back, leaving for a chance the person who informed them could end up dead, or injured. I'd say if a person who knows bites turn (having seen someone be turned BY a bite, from the last paragraph) should also be a bit more ready to accept their fate and go out in a blaze of glory (or at the very least, they wouldn't have the person who told them they're doomed to fight, unless they just want to fight random people. leaving them with just 'go out in a blaze of glory' or 'take themselves out') I don't know. I just like complex simulations. And just, simulations like this in general. I love videos like this, and I like to add on to things where I can.

[@alphacraig4784]

One thing you fail to account for from as far as i have gotten is the survivors kill rate on slower zombies would theoretically be higher than fast zombies. Although assuming the same exact kill rate your model is correct at least.

[@dannyphandom]

You are right in that people will kill slower zombies easier. My model did take that into account, I go over it at 19:24

[@alphacraig4784]

If you want to expand the model I would consider adding a maiming component that survivors who don't successfully kill a zombie are likely to at least injure it potentially slowing it.

[@kamm6001]

havent atched the full video (22 minutes in) but i feel like important things to include in the equation would be: if a human is bit, they might be able to cut off a limb and stop the infection given its done in a timely manner (depends on the type of zombie scenario) (has a chance to not work because its not done fast enough, or a chance to not even happen because the bite is on a limb that cant be amputated, or the person that was bit simply isnt willing to do so or is unable to do so) (if done right, add people with amputated limbs with the people talked about in the next sentence) humans might be hurt by other methods, and in either case, limiting the 'speed' (aka health as well) of people without the notable infection (starving, tired, sick from a previous illness, hurt from a previous injury or one unrelated to the infection) another thing would be to include factors of way-more-certain-of-a-death-or-bite-rate through taking into account the number of zombies around a person when they are attacked or are trying to flee and i feel like another thing to note would be that humans would probably kill each other sometimes, whether it be through depravity or over food or stuff and one more thing that would also depend on the zombie scenario would be humans coming back as zombies regardless of their death, unless their brain was destroyed (like TWD) another factor would be, at least on the scale of years and the environment, zombie decay would slow down zombies at a variable rate that eventually sets them at 0 speed (aka, death)

[@FriskTemmieGoogle]

14:55 I think everyone that played Plague Inc learned that leason really fast XD

[@ckinggaming5bucketmadness766]

Dying light’s sprinters do not agree

[@danielyosefs.diadio2614]

This dude needs more subs

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks you, I'm glad you liked the video! I'm really hoping this video can push me to the thousand mark

[@knighttakespawn]

Craving Brains wasn’t Romero - that’s from “Return of the Living Dead”

[@dannyphandom]

You're completely right, that was his cowriter Russo's. Thanks for the correction!

[@nineonine9082]

I think this is a problem of science, you can't solve this unless you have all the bits that go into it, which is just about impossible, like the study was like, everyone dead turns into zombies, in that scenario you are just screwed, the zombies will never die out, unless you make everyone live forever. You could say the most lethal zombie is the fast one, that only eats brains, because every zombies will be fast, at say below 50% speed, you can just walk away from zombies, they been even a non threat to children and the elderly as long as they have the knowledge to stay away and not go near dense zombie populations.

[@k-zilla8148]

Xenomorph invasion next? 👉👈

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks for the suggestion! But I don't think I would have much to really say about it, it would definitely be deadly but I don't have any unique perspective or interesting twist to add

[@k-zilla8148]

Fair enough honestly. Really fun video by the way. Laundry went by fast with this.

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@jug0572]

this video is really well made, and you did a great job, but i would argue that slow zombies cause MORE damage than fast ones, because fast ones usually have a low attention span. so slow zombies take their time and devour somebody bit by bit, while a fast zombie runs up and bites a guy, maybe beats and stratches him a bit, then moves on because they want more people. of course, this depends on what type of zombie, but im just going off of Romero zombies versus something like Zack Snyder's Dawn of The Dead, so i guess it doesnt really matter lol

[@dannyphandom]

Thank you! And ultimately it's just a model, so I really limited the variables to make it possible and so that I could change them to see the effects (zombie attention span would be a huge factor there). The differences in zombie behavior or type from movies is pretty drastic, so who knows what would be the actual deadliest there. But I'd have to say I think zombies that just bite and run to the next person would be the deadliest, as the bite is essentially a death sentence already and won't damage the new future zombie corpse as much, and they can focus on infecting instead of eating

[@balakkei]

The model could be improved by allowing humans to attack up to three surrounding zombies because the current one is forgetting a massive advantage of humanity - tools. If I have a gun, I can kill several zombies per minute, while a zombie is singularly minded and goes after one target at a time. I'd be interested to see how the numbers change when that happens, as I hypothesize that the clustering of the slow zombies would be reduced by this. Edit: you'd probably also have to make a mechanic where the sound of the gun attracts zombies in the case of humans using a multi-attack. I don't know if these would cancel each other out or if the gun would actually end up being a disadvantage in that case. It's fun to speculate though!

[@discreetbiscuit237]

Here's what I've learned: it's not necessary for zombies to be slow initially, the speed of zombies also depends on the damage received before infection (and after), for example, there may be a fast zombie that can easily catch up with a person, tear him to pieces, and he will be very slow, and when he can already kill someone if you bite, then that person will already become a fast zombie, and then we get 2 types of zombies, although this is the same (which, by the way, converges with the graph, where 100% and 50% of the speed of zombies are at 1 level of lethality), and to avoid such a spread in the speed of zombies, you need this type of zombie, the speed of which will not allow you to grab a person by the shoulders, but only by the legs, pulling the calf of one of the legs, after which the person will become a zombie with a poorly working leg, and with such a leg and speed, as a result, he will be able to grab an uninfected person by the leg at most, pulling it apart, and there will be the same zombie with the same speed, in 75% of the human, so that here it was possible to simply consider everything by logic.

[@dannyphandom]

I was a little confused by your phrasing, but I think you understood it perfectly! It reminds me of the phrase, "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." You get this cycle, no matter where you start. We want the best average speed overall, not fluctuating generations

[@discreetbiscuit237]

@@dannyphandom exactly, I agree with your comparison that a zombie's adaptability is like water, fluid. Which is what my original thought came from. My comment, I understand, looks confusing, but to understand the topic better, you need to try to explain it to someone else. In the process of writing a comment, I helped myself to better understand the video.

[@KingFluffs]

The fast, smart ones (Return of the living dead) are the sort that scare me. Those buggers can lay traps!

[@RandomMackem0069_Official]

Still I’d rather deal with a walker cause my chances of survival are way higher than getting chased by a runner

[@Nockgun]

sprinting zombies are gonna make me shit my pants, some of them can run through my rudimentary trap of punji pit and a tripwire and listen, I played zomboid and i know slow zombies will also exhaust me. but again sprinting zombies gives less time window for you to react

[@ravick007]

It makes me remember some zdoom mods that simulate zombie infections.

[@Mr_Yod]

6:26 There's an error in the equation: it considers EVERY removed infected able to become infected again, even those removed by destroying the brain, which is considered the only safe way to permanently destroy a zombie. Well, thanks a lot that we would last only 3 days: it's a fight against immortal undeads, Highlander - Zombie Version (where not even decapitation would stop them). Now I'll continue to watch the video (I had to stop there for reasons). =) Ok: it gets addressed in 10:33

[@Justaguy-p2h]

0:09 NO WAY, YOU UNLOCKED A CORE MEMORY WITH THAT ZOMBIE GAME YOU SHOWED

[@dannyphandom]

Boxhead was my childhood go-to browser game

[@Lucas-dl3rx]

One way to interpret the effect of fast zombies getting more "diluted" could be by the 2º law of themodinamics

[@dannyphandom]

Yep, that's exactly it! In the absence of any maintaining forces, diffusion is inevitable

[@KnTenshi2]

I would be curious about a model that has degrading zombies (they start a some speed, but then lose speed over the course of days to some non-zero minimum) as well as mutating zombies (they start at some speed, and gain speed up to 100% or some other maximum). I wonder how that'd change things.

[@murbed.]

guns and military exist

[@PotatoWithALaptop]

I feel like depending on what kind of zombie your talking about really determines there danger Walking dead type would be fast and somewhat smart at first upon transforming into a zombie however as they rot decay and keep moving would become slower dumber and more of a shambler. If it’s a parasite then it may keep its speed and some intelligence however when damaged enough it will die like a normal human as without a functioning body the parasite will also die. However the parasite may also cause mutations causing more or less dangerous variants, a good example of this “zombie” is last of us, the flood (halo), head crabs (half life), among other games and movies. Another one could be genetic or cognitive alteration where the human loses their ability of higher thought and becomes animalistic. This one is somewhat more realistic with some drugs and viruses irl causing similar effects. Much like parasitic zombies they can die to normal things humans can however their reduced pain receptors, increased adrenaline, and mindless nature would make them fast, strong, and will not rot unless dead. But they are dumb, savage, and less likely to mutate. But a movie that includes this would be the 28 days later, world war z, or I am legend. However the only one that seems to implement all of these is Resident evil having parasitic, virus, and genetic/virus zombies. In other words it’s a lot to take into account to determine the dangers of zombies no matter the type.

[@angelamaro3480]

One movie puts all these numbers and graphs in the can: Shaun of the Dead.

[@ChristianDall-p2j]

25:30 so, humans allow themselves tobe killed if they are infected, but not yet a zombie, or do they just commit mass-suicide, choosing to go extinct and die, rather than becoming zombies? Im Assuming the latter here, but please correct me if im wrong, or tell me if im not! Please! Thanks!

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks for asking, so you were right the first time! A person bitten by a zombie is essentially a ticking time bomb and unfortunately going to die either way, but they can face it a few ways. The more "honorable" thing to do would be die before you are turned, hoping to spare others from your future zombie self. But usually in movies/shows, people try to hide being bitten. I can't say I completely blame them, facing certain death is scary and I'm sure they have denial that they are lucky and can fight off the infection. So that was my "honor mode" situation. Your latter point is also a method, less people means less zombies, but unless it's completely inevitable I think I'd rather have more people to potentially fight off the zombies together.

[@ДаймеАруркардо]

It only makes sense if zombies are stereotypical stupid and outbreak is stereotypical too. Sorry if this sounds rude. But if zombies have some communications with each other (even if this is primitive horde instinct) the model should be other I think, also model doesn't take groups of survivors or isolated military. If in 1vs1 scenario zombie have some chances, well in 3vs3, or even in 3humans (especially with firearms) against 9 zombies other story. Still good video and big work.

[@dannyphandom]

Thanks for the compliments and input, I also agree. The real point of this model was to demonstrate that speed isn't everything and hitting the breaks a bit actually improves the spread. But is this an accurate zombie apocalypse model? Absolutely not, I don't even know if such a thing is possible. I'd have to say most stereotypical zombies/outbreaks would be pretty stupid in the simplicity (of the zombie behaviour at least). I don't think there would be communications really (if we are going classic undead or even living infected route), but grouping in primitive hordes is possible and something I could program in the future. Any form of group collaboration on the humans end though is extremely beneficial for their survival chances but also extremely complicated to account for. The most I could do would be to have them also travel in groups and coordinate attacking targets. Anything else and I'd need an XCOM programmer to help haha

[@semajniomet981]

Remember​, if it's not 100% accurate, it's going to miss. I can personally attest to this after playing Enemy Within.

[@higuyonfire]

I would have to think a mix of the types of zombies would have to be the deadliest for human right? If you had fast ones who could kill the active humans who are killing and you had slower ones that would convert more non-combative alive humans. I'm not sure you went over that in the video even though you had a section mentioning where there would be some partial zombies. Still really interesting concept that it might better for us if all zombies could sprint rather than be slower in some settings.

[@themistva]

1:46 Well the walking dead did keep the “any dead body can become a zombie” point.

[@JazzSicaa]

The difference from normal zombies and sprinters in Project Zomboid will tell you everything.

[@SandNoods]

The only problem about fast and slow zombies is that it's harder to train them if they're at different paces

[@scottinator1074]

Have you considered using boids to model zombie movement? It might reflect the “mindless horde” aspect quite well. Perhaps you could call them “zomboids”

[@dannyphandom]

I think it's a cool idea and a great game, but it ultimately relies on the idea that zombies would be capable of complex group behavior and communication. As I'm sure you are aware, boids was developed to model the behavior of a flock of birds. While zombie groups of zombies would certainly exist, is it because of an instinctual drive to stay together? I think that's quite an assumption for a creature usually seen as mindless and without organization between them. I think the groups of zombies are formed when starting in initially populated areas where they are turned and then reforming as they are attracted to the same stimuli, but will eventually disperse again afterwards. In the absence of a definitive answer towards group dynamics, I think random walk is the way to go as it's already been used to successfully model predator prey relationships in the past