Page 1 of 5

The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:12 pm UTC
by SpitValve
Seriously, the Flood are the one of the most dangerous parasitic/zombie/hive mind species in fiction. Their spores turn people into flood-zombies very rapidly. They can also fire guns, fly spaceships, and even organise patrols. The Forerunner, a civilisation capable of building a Dyson sphere, only managed to defeat them by wiping out (almost) all sentient life in the galaxy. That's pretty badass.

Flood versus headcrabs? Flood versus Zerg? Flood versus Borg? What do you think?

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:21 pm UTC
by Endless Mike
Apparently they can beat Iowa.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:02 am UTC
by Xbehave
theyve got nothing on replicators

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:19 pm UTC
by Robin S
I'm pretty sure that most godlike beings could take them out. The Q Continuum, for example.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:02 pm UTC
by markfiend
The Flood? Didn't Noah beat that with just a big wooden ark?

I'll get me coat.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:59 pm UTC
by Bulvox
markfiend wrote:The Flood? Didn't Noah beat that with just a big wooden ark?

I'll get me coat.

lol, wrong flood, but good idea. anyway, the flood beat any organic creature with sufficient body mass to help produce new flood, or to transform into combat forms. they lose against robots, androids, computers, and plants.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:31 pm UTC
by Robin S
Aren't plants (and some androids) organic lifeforms?

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:33 pm UTC
by Bulvox
plants are organic lifeforms, but the flood will never infect them because they don't have nerve endings. and your thinking of cyborgs, androids just resemble humans.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:38 am UTC
by Xbehave
fine the organic replicators in the SG1 spin-off would kick the floods arse then.
or the stuff that eats stuff in the shadows in dr who
or the borg (given that the flood have no mind and the borg would simply controll them)

hell pretty much anything in halo can be owned purely because the game is so lame, i mean no health bars WTF?

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:49 am UTC
by Robin S
Bulvox wrote:and your thinking of cyborgs, androids just resemble humans.
No, I'm thinking of androids.
Wikipedia wrote:In some fiction works, the primary difference between a robot and android is only skin-deep, with androids being made to look almost exactly like humans on the outside, but with internal mechanics exactly the same as that of robots. In other stories, authors have defined android to indicate a wholly organic, yet artificial, creation.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:04 am UTC
by Berengal
The way I understand it, androids are robots that look like humans, and cyborgs are humans with cybernetic parts. Exactly what an android is made of is unimportant, only that they look like humans but essentially are programmed machines.

Also, this is probably a discussion for another thread, unless the question of wether the flood can eat androids or not is important.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:38 pm UTC
by markfiend
Bulvox wrote:
markfiend wrote:The Flood? Didn't Noah beat that with just a big wooden ark?

I'll get me coat.

lol, wrong flood, but good idea.

:lol: I forgot that the I'll get me coat meme is peculiarly British. It's from The Fast Show.

I don't even know what "flood" this topic's about, I was just cracking a lame joke. :mrgreen:

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:54 am UTC
by SpitValve
Xbehave wrote:i mean no health bars WTF?


So you don't like Gears of War or Rainbow Six 3 either? But seriously: why would you want a game to use the same mechanic for health that has been used since Wolfenstein 3D?

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:02 pm UTC
by Xbehave
SpitValve wrote:
Xbehave wrote:i mean no health bars WTF?


So you don't like Gears of War or Rainbow Six 3 either? But seriously: why would you want a game to use the same mechanic for health that has been used since Wolfenstein 3D?

Ive not played enough of rainbow six to be sure but i thought there was a healthbar it was just hidden, but thats besides the point.

As for Gears of War, i played abit of it and wasnt very impressed tbh its just a case of binding cool effects to A so there is no still involved its just running from cover to cover with A and then shooting, but i didn't play much of it so this may not be fair.

Yes if its not broken don't fix it, with no type of permanent damage halo 2/3 are pathetic, i mean all you have to do is hide for a couple of second and its like your attacker didn't do anything. In multilayer it changes the entire game to a chargefest (which as the game is mainly played by American 13 y/o is probably fine) and removes any element of strategy while creating a stupid rift between better players. I mean if player 2 is slightly better than player 1, then player 2 can keep killing player 1 and it doesn't matter how much damage player 2 takes because by the time player 1 respawns hes recharged. It cripples any sort of long range weapon because if you don't get a head shot then it doesn't matter (again creating a rift between those that can HS 1st time and those that cant). It cripples grenades because if you don't get a kill you don't get anything unless you charge straight in afterwards. As for single player removing the health bar meant that there is no reason to take any care, you just charge though everything, then hide behind a wall, rinse and repeat, in fairness to counter this they added a stupid number of enemies which covers up the flaw quite well.

Its not that you need a 'healthbar' as such just that its the best way of implementing a permanent damage system, while Halo 1s recharging shields was nice (it allowed for more aggressive game play) the removal of the healthbar (among other epic flaws) meant halo 2 was rubbish and while halo3 added some cool effects its not much better.

in short without permanent damage:
Long range combat is ruined > Without long range combat most strategy is ruined > game is a twitch fest
A worse player cant do ANYTHING to a better player

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:28 pm UTC
by neverender
Xbehave wrote:
SpitValve wrote:
Xbehave wrote:i mean no health bars WTF?


So you don't like Gears of War or Rainbow Six 3 either? But seriously: why would you want a game to use the same mechanic for health that has been used since Wolfenstein 3D?

Ive not played enough of rainbow six to be sure but i thought there was a healthbar it was just hidden, but thats besides the point.

As for Gears of War, i played abit of it and wasnt very impressed tbh its just a case of binding cool effects to A so there is no still involved its just running from cover to cover with A and then shooting, but i didn't play much of it so this may not be fair.

Yes if its not broken don't fix it, with no type of permanent damage halo 2/3 are pathetic, i mean all you have to do is hide for a couple of second and its like your attacker didn't do anything. In multilayer it changes the entire game to a chargefest (which as the game is mainly played by American 13 y/o is probably fine) and removes any element of strategy while creating a stupid rift between better players. I mean if player 2 is slightly better than player 1, then player 2 can keep killing player 1 and it doesn't matter how much damage player 2 takes because by the time player 1 respawns hes recharged. It cripples any sort of long range weapon because if you don't get a head shot then it doesn't matter (again creating a rift between those that can HS 1st time and those that cant). It cripples grenades because if you don't get a kill you don't get anything unless you charge straight in afterwards. As for single player removing the health bar meant that there is no reason to take any care, you just charge though everything, then hide behind a wall, rinse and repeat, in fairness to counter this they added a stupid number of enemies which covers up the flaw quite well.

Its not that you need a 'healthbar' as such just that its the best way of implementing a permanent damage system, while Halo 1s recharging shields was nice (it allowed for more aggressive game play) the removal of the healthbar (among other epic flaws) meant halo 2 was rubbish and while halo3 added some cool effects its not much better.

in short without permanent damage:
Long range combat is ruined > Without long range combat most strategy is ruined > game is a twitch fest
A worse player cant do ANYTHING to a better player


well you seem to be biased against regenerative health, but as a certified FPS noob (could never play any one long enough to get good at it) i can tell you the skilled player vs less skilled player situation occurs exactly the same way in 90% of the FPS's.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:06 pm UTC
by Baba Yaga's Sister
Beating the Flood is as easy as finding some species that's immune to their spores for whatever reason. Then it turns into a standard genocidal war.

From what I remember of Halo, the Flood learn by monkey see, monkey do. They'll scavenge equipment, but never manufacture their own (right?). So to keep the technological advantage, you just need to use weapons that can't be recovered. Orbital bombardment, nanomachines, and voice-activated guns would all work (I don't think Flood talk).

And there's always setting up an atmospheric force field and letting them eat themselves to death.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:09 pm UTC
by SpitValve
Baba Yaga's Sister wrote:From what I remember of Halo, the Flood learn by monkey see, monkey do. They'll scavenge equipment, but never manufacture their own (right?). So to keep the technological advantage, you just need to use weapons that can't be recovered. Orbital bombardment, nanomachines, and voice-activated guns would all work (I don't think Flood talk).


maybe... The Flood have been able to take over spaceships, and if they get enough ships then they'll get a couple through to your bombarding fleet, and then it's all over. I imagine voice-activated guns would be more trouble than they're worth, especially in a panicked situation when being attacked by your own recently deceased crew.

In Halo 3 it explains that the Flood start at a feral stage, where they're basically comparatively smart fast zombies. They then put together enough corpses to build an overmind-type creature called a Gravemind. At this stage, they can get pretty smart. They can also build smaller brain blobs things to do stuff like pilot ships and so on.

And there's always setting up an atmospheric force field and letting them eat themselves to death.


The Gravemind learnt how to use a teleporter :)

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:45 pm UTC
by Xbehave
neverender wrote:well you seem to be biased against regenerative health, but as a certified FPS noob (could never play any one long enough to get good at it) i can tell you the skilled player vs less skilled player situation occurs exactly the same way in 90% of the FPS's.


I have nothing against some regenerative health, but some permanent damage is needed.
Sure a noob is still going to lose to a pro, if you have 2 average players one being slightly better than the other(A > B)
round 1 A kills B but B hurts A
round n A is hurt enough that B kills him

Its not guaranteed but generally aslong as neither player is a pro or a total noob, this will eventually happen. A will still win but for him to win by a good margin he will have to try, under halo 2 rules A is guaranteed to anhilate B, even if hes just a bit better.

In Halo 3 it explains that the Flood start at a feral stage, where they're basically comparatively smart fast zombies. They then put together enough corpses to build an overmind-type creature called a Gravemind. At this stage, they can get pretty smart. They can also build smaller brain blobs things to do stuff like pilot ships and so on.

Wow sounds just like starship troopers, all you need to do is capture a couple of brainblobs and figure out how they think.

If the master chief can pretty much annihilate flood in the 1st 2 all you need is a way of doing it safely, like automated turrents used in alien.

maybe... The Flood have been able to take over spaceships, and if they get enough ships then they'll get a couple through to your bombarding fleet, and then it's all over. I imagine voice-activated guns would be more trouble than they're worth, especially in a panicked situation when being attacked by your own recently deceased crew.

How do they get onto the spaceships? Id assume they manage to overrun the teleporters because the initial aim of the fleet wasn't to simply nuke the site from orbit, if a fleet arrived with the sole intention of destroying the flood it would be an easy task, because once you get proper protocols in place they cant follow you back to your ships. and if a ship starts turning on you simply give them 2 minutes to evacuate to lifepods and then use a remote control to blow the airlocks.
Voice activated guns arnt needed, you just need to trick your soldiers into wearing belts that blow them to bits if they die (not great for moral tho)

Due to the soldiers lack of intelligence, the flood are a very weak enemy, they don't even have the sort of planning of aliens they just charge straight at you. No dumb aliens have ever been an unbeatble enemy, zombies are much weaker than vampires, the replicators are weak until they develop higher level intelligence, etc,

They cant see you when your invisible so the predators could completely annihilate them

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:30 pm UTC
by -z-
The flood? Come on!? I'm sorry, but no new enemy really has an edge on the oldies. The flood are just glorified zombies, a fun solution is just to blow 'em up. :twisted:

I think the Daleks from Doctor Who would make quick work of them.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:27 pm UTC
by Xanthir
Xbehave wrote:
neverender wrote:well you seem to be biased against regenerative health, but as a certified FPS noob (could never play any one long enough to get good at it) i can tell you the skilled player vs less skilled player situation occurs exactly the same way in 90% of the FPS's.


I have nothing against some regenerative health, but some permanent damage is needed.
Sure a noob is still going to lose to a pro, if you have 2 average players one being slightly better than the other(A > B)
round 1 A kills B but B hurts A
round n A is hurt enough that B kills him

Its not guaranteed but generally aslong as neither player is a pro or a total noob, this will eventually happen. A will still win but for him to win by a good margin he will have to try, under halo 2 rules A is guaranteed to anhilate B, even if hes just a bit better.

You are contradicting yourself. You assume that A is only slightly better than B, and then assume that B can't ever kill A if A is at full health.

A slight difference in skill would mean that A *does* get killed by B even from full health. A just wins slightly more often. For your scenario to work, Player A would have to be *much* better than Player B. In this case, player B will generally get annihilated. non-regenerative health merely means B has a chance to be annihilated slightly less, as his occasional lucky shots gradually build up.

That is, of course, assuming that there are no health packs anywhere. If there are, then A is in pretty much the same boat.

Now, you *are* correct that regenerative health encourages charging, but your other point is wrong.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:15 am UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
The Gravemind Spoke, and I'm pretty sure an infected Prophet in the Halo Graphic Novel spoke as well, so voice-activated guns wouldn't work. What we're looking at is highly infectious, fast working, fast moving strong zombies with an intelligent enough hivemind to work machines such as guns and planes, but apparently not doors.
They are not very good at surviving fire, so orbital bombardment's good if you don't mind making the planet fairly useless and there's no underground. Else, a few armoured (I'm talking armour which is sealed here) folk with flamers should do the trick.

The Daleks should be able to defeat them, but they are still organic beneath the (not everything-proof) armour, so they could be infected.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:03 am UTC
by Irrefutable
Tbh it depends at what stage of infection you find them. If its one issolated break out in a colony you just carpet bomb the area and problem solved. However if you are in a situation with several fully infected planets with spaceships flying off infected with the flood you are best off doing damage control with some sort of fail safe.

Personally id pack as many people as i could into sealed Capital ships, each with enough goods and people to start a new civilisation if needed and send them off into some unlikely sector of space. Then just start anhilating them where you find them.

Short question : Do the Flood feed? Could you send these Capital ships into space, wait for the Flood to starve then come back? Or can the spores just lay dormant for millenia?

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:42 pm UTC
by VannA
They laid dorment for Eons in the games, so I don't think that's viable.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:11 am UTC
by Master Gunner
They lasted in dormancy for at least 100 000 years on the Halos and other Forerunner installations, but it is unknown if they were in some kind of stasis or were otherwise assisted in preservation. The ones in the gas giant installation in Halo 2 (which was (one of) the first places the Flood was studied) seemed to be stored in some kind of cryogenic technology. Of course that only slows down their chemical and biological processes, it'd still build up over 100 000 years. In Halo 1 when you first encountered the spores they just broke through the walls and you didn't see any kind of preservation technology in the (sealed) rooms they came from, but it's hard to say for certain as it might have been hidden in the walls, and when the Covenant might of turned it off, there would be nothing left to see.

Still though, I'm going to say they can last a good long time, but not indefinitely, without food. They were able to survive in captivity on Forerunner installations, but not out in the Galaxy proper after the Halos killed off all their food sources.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:27 am UTC
by Peregrine
Honestly, in a Flood vs. Borg situation, they would both win. The Flood gets assimilated, causing the Flood to have better technology and intelligence, and the Borg to be better at assimilating. The rest of the universe is pretty much screwed at this point.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:17 pm UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
Flood versus Tyranids is similar to the above Borg thing, but with much easier integration due to organic everythings.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:08 am UTC
by Lookbehindyou
I reckon the flood would be easy to defeat. :) i have yet to see any indication that they can survive the effects of a nuclear bomb. You get enough nukes, problem solved :)


(the replicators of stargate would so kick the floods proverbial backside)

(also the death star would win)

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:40 pm UTC
by Sardaukar
As displayed by Mr. Chief in the (coughoverratedexceptforHaloPCbecauseithasYoyorastIslandbestmapEvar) Halo series, to overcome a Flood horde, one must backpedal indefinitely while shooting. So, what we do is, we take trucks, and put several dozen chainguns on them. Then we drive around all willy-nilly leadifying the environment until they're dead. Or to counter lame with lame, and draw from another universe, we just declare

EXTERMINATUS
Image

Or, failing that, sic Tyranids.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:49 am UTC
by SpitValve
Sardaukar wrote:EXTERMINATUS


That's pretty much what the Halo rings do, but on a larger scale...

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:24 pm UTC
by Baza210
I think you're forgetting that Velociraptors can open doors. Disturbingly, according to recent rumours, they can also wear top hats.

So they would win.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:07 pm UTC
by BlackSails
Dont forget, the Flood gravemind has magic

He can teleport things, and himself at will.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:39 pm UTC
by Lozzy-G
Sorry, but the Daleks would exterminate the flood. they are completely sealed, so no chance of the spores getting to them, technologicaly advanced (time travel, moving planets etc) and the most hateful and evil creatures ever to exist. Personaly, i would say they are the best villians ever.



And before anyone says it, any true Dr. Who fan knows that a true Dalek doesnt need to climb stairs, it levels the building instead.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:29 pm UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
BlackSails wrote:Dont forget, the Flood gravemind has magic

He can teleport things, and himself at will.


Actually that was abuse of the teleport system the monitors use and that cortana hacked in the first game.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:52 am UTC
by Dave Rapp
The forerunner strategy to get rid of the Flood made no sense at all. They were willing to wipe out EVERYTHING in the entire galaxy, probably including themselves, just to get rid of the flood... and yet the kept them alive on their big destructive weapon things. They're smart enoug to build the Halo network but can't figure out that he flood is likely to eventually come back and kill everything again?

The Flood and Borg assimilating each other would be scary-awesome.

Lozzy-G wrote:Sorry, but the Daleks would exterminate the flood. they are completely sealed, so no chance of the spores getting to them, technologicaly advanced (time travel, moving planets etc) and the most hateful and evil creatures ever to exist. Personaly, i would say they are the best villians ever.


I don't watch Doctor Who, but I challenge this claim. Wiki doesn't say anything about Daleks being completely indestructible, and if it breaks, the flood will eventually find a way to break it. Also, Palpatine was the most hateful and evil creature ever to exist.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:21 pm UTC
by TheKrikkitWars
Grues, Grues would f**k the Flood up good and proper.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:14 pm UTC
by Xanthir
Dave Rapp wrote:The Flood and Borg assimilating each other would be scary-awesome.

Flood + Borg + Zerg.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:56 pm UTC
by crp
TheKrikkitWars wrote:Grues, Grues would f**k the Flood up good and proper.


Not if they had lanterns!

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:41 pm UTC
by Danny_Salinger
I'm not so sure if the Warhammer 40k races should be invited to arguments like this. It's just unfair.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:17 am UTC
by Xanthir
Flood + Borg + Zerg + Tyrannid.

Re: The Flood versus EVERYTHING

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:13 am UTC
by Vieto
crp wrote:
TheKrikkitWars wrote:Grues, Grues would f**k the Flood up good and proper.


Not if they had lanterns!


Your forgetting, lanterns eventually burn out.