Suggestion:20071203 Falling Into Disrepair

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Removed
This suggestion has been removed from voting Author withdrew for editing.



Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Today's Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing


Contents

20071203 Falling Into Disrepair

Pardus 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Tactical Addition

Suggestion scope
Ruined Buildings

Suggestion description

Issue: At the moment ruined buildings can be repair for 1AP with a 100% chance of success, this appears to some as unbalanced, but previous suggestion have had rather unlikable side effects.

Idea: I suggest that for every day a building is ruined the chance to repair it decreases by 15% to a minimum of 10%.

Therefore if a building stays ruined for;
More than 24 Hours (1 day), the chance to repair will be 85%.
>2 Days 70%, >3 days 55%, >4 Days 40%. >5 Days 25%. >6 Days 10%.

Results: If survivors do not pay attention to a building for a long time they will have a difficult time retaking it and zombies may be able to claim territory.

It will take just under a week of zombie presence and/or survivor laziness to make it extremely difficult to retake.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


Keep Votes

  1. Author I really need to explain why? - Pardus 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - I can hear the complaints from survivor zealots already, but from both sides of the fence I think it's a damned good idea. It could well actually level the balance of territory and, ZOMG, make the game challenging for survivors again. --The Hierophant 09:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Everything in this game is based on percentages, why not this? God forbid the harmanz actually work together to obtain an objective, but this may mean a tweak for the zombie ruin as well, discuss- YosemiteclimberGore Corps 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep/Change - You get my Keep, but it would be better if you make it more than a week (perhaps 10% a day - so you get the lowest probability - 10% - on the day 10). And add some visible information for players about the degree of disrepair - so that survivors have some idea what their chances are. -- John RubinT! ZG FER 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep/Change - i've seen many buildings go for a week but, ah who cares it brightens it up a little, and now we can have some real desolation.--Zach016 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep/Change - As most of the guys have said it, one week is too fast! --the wallaby♥ 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep Makes ruins actually worthwhile (compared to being the AP-waste they currently are) and gives zombie-heavy neighborhoods a real flavor. CharonX 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - OK. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep/Change Longer than a week. --Karloth Vois RR 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep/Change - Onoz! A real zombie challenge!!! Run away! I agree, longer than a week, but this is an AMAZING idea. Oh, and the logic is simple. The zombies "dig in", and the further disrepair results. UCFSD 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep/Change As above. Omega 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. SWEET MOTHER OF GOD THIS IS AMAZING!!! - this would finally make the game balanced, make the city look actually embattled, not just humans running out of malls, sniping sleeping zombies, and hiding again, and - OH - give zombies a chance!Not only should this be implemented, I should invent a time machine and suggest in two years ago! --Officer 123satsitx 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep/Change - As above, 10% a day would be better, even 5% a day. Good idea though. --DonTickles 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep/change - As DonTickles.Studoku 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep/Change - Love the idea, however, as DonTickles I think 10%/day is better. --Shazzelim 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Keep/Change Raise the minimum to like 15%. ----Secruss|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ|Image:Evil3.gif|MU|GN|C2008||20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Sure. Good enough already. BoboTalkClown 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep - cool, but it shouldn't go lower than 25%, i think --Bring The Pain!Anti Gorefest5Fight The Pain!TMW!B! 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep- I like it. --Darth LumisT! A! E! SR 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Keep/Change ~ It just makes sense, buildings that are asready distressed become more so, I think 15% is a bit much, perhaps 5% at the most per week sounds better --Loop Ho Tep 05:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Keep - Its a good idea that leaves unnoticed buildings available for hideouts. good for PKers and zombies. balances teh game right out i reckon. realistic too. (this could work for caded but un-occupied buildings too, i'd like THAT to be implemented. eg, if a buiding is unoccupied for 3 days, its cade lvl drops by one level...Michael ruppe 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Keep - But as most of the others above around 10%/day would be better. --Lh778 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Perfect for groups like the RRF. And will help balance the game more. --Happy doodle 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Keep - Great. Ruin needs a boost, badly. This might do wonders. - Grant 08:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Under a week? That's too little time. Make it 2 weeks and we'll talk. --Axe Hack is "Old Skool" 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Change I'd want to include a percentage ticker for a survivor to know what his chance to repair the building would be. --Karlsbad 10:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Seriously I think Kevan is smart enough to realize what this needs Anyway, this is not an interface suggestion, this is a mechanic suggestion. - Pardus 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    There are no tickers for either side, it's random percentage. That, is what keeps this game interesting! YosemiteclimberGore Corps non-author re struck --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Dux, join me in the red rum channel for discussion before it's too late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yosemiteclimber (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. Non-author Re struck. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Change I think Axe Hack has it - no less than two weeks in my book. One is too fast. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    One is too fast? Or do you mean you're too (#2) slow? You actually expect zombies to hold a building for 2 weeks? Really? YosemiteclimberGore Corps Non-author RE struck. • Revenant said "Blanemcc is a PKer?" (1 year and 10 months ago) 12:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill Interesting idea but this is a little overpowered. What if the AP cost to repair it just climbed by 1 for every day it's ruined, up to maximuim of 5? --Jon Pyre 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Increase in survivor deaths? - Pardus 09:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Changing it over to AP, like what Jon suggested, and making take longer than a week seem like better options. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Seeing as the randomised % actions tend to screw me over pretty repeatedly, I'd much rather this was based on AP spent than % chance success--SeventythreeTalk 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Will would end up killing survivors (because of not knowing the amount of AP required) or just generally complicate the issue. - Pardus 09:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - One week is too little time, and you can't really completely fail at fixing a building - at least something you pile up or nail down will remain in place. Maybe have various levels of disrepair, from 1 to 10, with 10-25% of chance to raise one level per day, and costing 1 or 2 AP per level to revert. AlexBarnes 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    You are asking for complications, K.I.S.S. - Pardus 09:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Change - Good suggestion, but "falls into disrepair" too quickly.--  AHLGTH 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Revise - Please, you have to revise this, beacuse it takes very short time to go into disrepair. Try to multiply everyone one of those with ~1.5 to get better results. Anyways, the idea is good.--  Savant  Chit-Chat  19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - JFC... This is way too much - straight out OP. Get a grip --Ryiis 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - Not unrealistic, but not particularly fun. --Pgunn 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Revise - Decreasing 5% or 10% a day is more realistic. Territories don't fluctuate that easily, and a building left ruined for a week can't possibly be as "easy" to repair as one left ruined for a month, can it? Ariedartin 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill -This combined with the cade and ruin tactic being used by some groups is too unbalancing.Pvt human
  14. Kill - Why would the building be harder to repair just because it's sat there for a week? If this required zombies to spend AP to "further ransack," (As survivors must do to strengthen barricades) then it might be fair. Why is this any different from a change that would make barricades stronger over time through some "settling effect" without any survivor AP effort, simply because they sit there for a week? --Shoot 1st 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    It not really about the zombies camping out, it's about the survivors looking after their home territory. - Pardus 09:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Kill - Shoot 1st has a good point. What exactly would cause a building to fall further into disrepair just by sitting around untouched? If anything, it would stay in the state that it was left in short of weapons fire, body dumping, or inclement weather hitting the building itself. --Private Mark 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Because when ruined, windows, doors, etc are broken allowing the elements to get in. With all the rusting, mildew, rotting of wood, etc you get a rapid decay of materials which have to be replaced. - Pardus 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Still, I imagine it would take at least a week to two weeks before any significant damage sets in, unless this was combined with the various weather-related suggestions. --Private Mark 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Kill So you're saying that survivors should not stand a chance to retake Ridley? Uh, NO! ~A`Blue`JellyTME*V*I*L*? 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Like they stand a chance now. - Pardus 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Kill - As I said in suggestion talk. --Pdeq 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - way too harsh a change, and you know it. Leaving aside your whole "it takes a week" sideshow, you're talking about changing a 100% success action to a 10% success action. And, you're not even providing a reason for the giant nerf. And what's happening over that single week to make things so much more difficult, anyway? Talk to me about your internal game logic here. See, when I leave my house alone for a week I don't come back to find it's disintegrated or anything. In fact, it's usually just as I left it. You just seem to want to punish survivors because I presume you play mostly zombie. Try to get a balanced sense of the game. --Funt Solo QT 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Nice strawman Funt, too bad it's completely false. I have 1 Constructionist, 1 Reviver, 1 Death Cultist and 1 Feral. - Pardus 09:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. (^^) - I understand zombies need some good buff,but this is overpowered.A organized zombie group(a large one) can easily lay waste to the whole game with yours change:Ruin buildings and station some zeds inside,in a week and quite a few subrubs will be unretakable.Keep this game interesting?This game's random number generator tend to screw up low percentage actions.And,a game shouldn't punish players just because they don't show up for a week!Multiply this by just a hundred and a whole subrub is next to UNREPAIRABLE.This might quickly evolve into the ratio of more than 80% of city taken by zeds.--Perne 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Every suburb will be retakable, except those like Ridleybank. Which is actually surrounded by the highest level of survivor activity in the game. - Pardus 09:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    I personally think 80 percent of the city taken over would be good for rping, and would keep in genre, and I play a survivor! --Happy doodle 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Non-author comment struck. --Funt Solo QT 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - It takes a week, that means that it will never happen outside of places that are completely destroyed anyway.--Karekmaps?! 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    I get it, you want to be able to complain that "It's unfair for zombies". - Pardus 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    No, that's what you want me to be saying, I'm saying that anything where a portion of it takes a week, or even more than a day or two, is to long and should not be suggested. A week is an extremely long time in this game, especially for holding territory in combat, all your suggestion will do is make places that are always in ruins always in ruins.--Karekmaps?! 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Spam - as Funt Solo --~~~~ [talk] 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam -So... why? And also, why don't buildings which stay non-ransacked for over one day quickly get difficult to ransack? This must be one of the most idiotic suggestions I've ever seen. --AlexanderRM 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20071203_Falling_Into_Disrepair"
advertising
project wonderful