Suggestion:20071210 Falling Into Disrepair V1.1

	Removed
	This suggestion has been removed from voting Author withdrew for the final time for editing.

20071210 Falling Into Disrepair V1.1

Pardus 10:41, 10 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 suggestions have had rather unlikable side effects.

Idea: I suggest that for every day a building is ruined the chance to repair it decreases by 10% to a minimum of 20%.

Therefore if a building stays ruined for;
More than 24 Hours (1 day), the chance to repair will be 90%.
>2 Days 80%, >3 days 70%, >4 Days 60%. >5 Days 50%. And so on.

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 a large 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 Resubmitted with changes made from minimal feedback received. - Pardus 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep/Change - Make it 40% instead of 20%. --The Hierophant 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep/Change - 10% per day or 5% per day, that's up to Kevan. Whatever the minimum chance, once we've started "negotiating" like this it just means we agree in principle and should vote For the suggestion. Anything else is a waste of time. -- Rutherford 15:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   I agree (and my frustration shows), but there will be no change to the way things work around here. Everybody is too comfortable. - Pardus 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Keep - As has been stated before, Kevan will be the one to decide which percentages to use. If you think this is a good idea IN PRINCIPLE, vote "Keep/Change," not "Kill". I for one like this suggestion just as it is. --Mister Nathan Marbles 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
5. 'Keep/Change - What the others said, mostly, but in keep form. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep/Change - better, but numbers are still awful. although anyway Kevan will change them taking into account information that we don't have, so why even bother... except that it really should be longer than 1 week --~~~~ [talk] 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep Likes it. Ruin is too expensive and not quite powerful enough as is. ----Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep- Ignore funt. BoboTalkClown 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - This will encourage survivor groups to engage large suburb eating hordes more closely, instead of fleeing to the nearest green suburb.--Noobermenschen 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Keep - Fixing something should, in general, be harder than breaking it. I like the idea. In regard to the specific percentages, I feel compelled to point out that though I see complaints that this degrades too fast it is capped so that the expected number of AP to fix the ruin is, at most, the same as the number of AP the zeds must spend to ruin it. A house that's as easy to put back together as to ransack? Build 'em outside Malton and every mother shall want one. - Seigi - improper sig struck; no timestamp. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Keep - Aha. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 08:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - like someone else said here ... the longer something is broke, the harder it should be to repair. Cheveyo 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - The principle's fine, percentages and gameplay problems can be worked out when implemented as with other additions to the game. Iscariot 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - Gives "ruin" a little more strength and makes survivors have to work a little harder. Balance in the game is nothing to cry over, ffs. --Goolina _{Gore Corps} 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. That narrows it down to...8 days, which is still close to a week. I told you before. Make it 2 weeks and we'll talk. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Would've taken that into account if either A) There was more people in agreement with you or B) If you gave this feedback on the development page. - Pardus 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Didn't you read through the votes last time? There were some people who agreed with me. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 11:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Previous reply edited to add bold. - Pardus 11:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   talk page - Pardus 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Change - Make it a minimum of 50%, not 20%, and ignore Funt, he seems to not understand negotiation requires more than just other people bending to his will.--Karek^maps?! 11:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Change Change it to an increased AP cost, the Random % thing tends to screw people over.--Seventythree^Talk 12:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   You can suggest that. But I find that actual possibility of increased deaths due to APing out in an open building would screw people over more hence I won't suggest it. - Pardus 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Change - Jes´s you´r not listening....it´s too fast. --the wallaby^♥ 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   talk page - Pardus 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Change - How about 10% a day until 70%, after which it decreases at 5% a day until 20%? –Ariedartin ^Talk 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   talk page - Pardus 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Kill - Makes the game less fun. Additionally, I'm tired of the stream of slightly different versions of this proposal. --Pgunn 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - I'm with Pgunn on this one - that, and I wouldn't vote for a less than well thought out ruin buff anyway --Ryiis 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - What happens when after 5 days you retake a building then as you try to repair it all the zombies stand up and kill you before the building is even repaired, to much frustration --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 15:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   That has just as much chance to happen now as it does with this suggestion. - Pardus 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Not really, i mean you can maybe repair and shut the doors before some stand up, but with this it might take 1-9 trys to repair and by then you'll be dead or forced to evac--Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

9. Kill Eh...I don't like making fixing buildings a random event. You know how you can miss 10 times with a 40% chance in this game. --Jon Pyre 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Same reason as before: "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?" And it doesn't matter if your response is that this is "about survivors looking after their home territory." The point is that zeds should have to ACT to make the building worse, just as survivors have to ACT to make a building more fortified. Auto-effects take away from the person vs. person dynamic. --Shoot 1st 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Kill - I want decreased APs.And,this one isn't that different -- it is only one day longer as Axe.--Perne 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Change- Limit it to 5 days (50%) --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Pillaged I'm sorry, but did you just Copy and Paste your original suggestion? I could have sworn I've already seen this. To lazy to find it. But anyways... WHY do you want to make it impossible for someone to attempt to retake Ridleybank? And what happens at 10 days? Do you now have NO CHANCE of repairing? ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    I am tweaking the numbers, the difference is the last one was 15% minimum 10%, this is 10% minimum 20%. - Pardus 13:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

14. Kill - I don't like it. --Pdeq 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
15. I think alot of the kill votes actually like it. It just needs the right numbers and the general consensus is "too fast". But at the same time, Kevan tweaks the numbers all the time so even if we actually get a "winner" that has the right numbers,he might still change them. Oh and, for simplicity, maybe 10% per day.--Pesatyel 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Been trying to find it, seems 10%/day, 50% min seems to be the best option at the moment coming from the votes and the discussion on the talk page. - Pardus 13:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

16. Kill - Yeah still too fast. Halve the numbers again. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Your tough negotiating skills (ie not really giving an inch over the previous version) have forced me to drop out of the negotiations altogether with this Spam vote. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   You negotiated to begin with? I thought you just whined about your inability to understand how things degrade more quickly when damaged and moronically accused me of favouring zombies. - Pardus 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   You are favouring zombies. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   And that's the only part of what i said you can disagree with? ROFL. - Pardus 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   The only part worth responding to. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)