Suggestion:20080803 RUIN IMPROVEMENT

	Spam!
	This suggestion was voted as spam and closed for voting, with 0 keep, 13 kill, and 3 spam votes.

20080803 RUIN IMPROVEMENT

Zombie Lord 14:21, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Improvement

Suggestion scope
Ruined Buildings.

Suggestion description
1. A freshly Ruined buildings starts at 2 AP to repair. (To represent repairing the Ransack)

2. Repairing a Ruin but be done by spending 1 AP at a time, rather than spending it all at once.

3. Chance for failure to repair for each AP spent based on remaining AP needed to repair as follows:

1-10 :5%

11-20 :10%

21-30 :15%

31-40 :20%

41-50+ :25%

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

Kill Votes

1. Ruin doesn't need a buff Diablor 14:37, 3 August 2008 (BST)

   No? It needs something, as it's useless as it stands.--Zombie Lord 14:51, 3 August 2008 (BST)

2. Kill - I don't think this is the way I'd prefer this addressed.--Karek^maps?! 14:59, 3 August 2008 (BST)
3. Kill - Ruins are plenty hard to repair already. In some burbs you'd be lucky to repair two buildings in one AP cycle, and they don't need to be made worse.--William Told 16:35, 3 August 2008 (BST)
4. Kill - I do think that ruin should be allowed to be partially repaired, but as Karek.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  19:02, 3 August 2008 (BST)
5. Kill - Dumb zombies. As Billy, we don't need any percentages tacked on to a system that is expensive enough as it is. --Vandurn 19:13, 3 August 2008 (BST)
6. Kill - As above. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:26, 3 August 2008 (BST)
7. Kill--Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||21:15, 3 August 2008 (BST)
8. Kill This is a horrible idea Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (BST)
9. Kill - Ruin's fine as is. --Private Mark 05:28, 4 August 2008 (BST)
10. Kill - Yeah, this isn't what we need to 'fix' the problem with Ruin. If, in fact, there IS a problem. To be honest, there really aren't that many buildings that go ruined for long periods of time outside of Ridleybank and Monroeville. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:45, 4 August 2008 (BST)
11. Kill - This manages to be both a nerf and a buff at the same time. It allows "ruin strafing" for survivors and forces those who want to play properly to waste huge amounts of clicks repairing a single building. The failure percentages are just pointlessly annoying.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:15, 4 August 2008 (BST)
12. Kill I agree this is both nerf and buff. I don't think adding random percentages is a good idea. I also agree that this is NOT A DUPE. A random percentage is not a small difference, and even a small difference is enough to make it a separate and valid suggestion. --Jon Pyre 15:55, 4 August 2008 (BST)
13. Kill - This is pretty bad...Ioncannon11 11:59, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam is not a strong "kill". Nope. "Repairing a Ruin but be done by spending 1 AP at a time, rather than spending it all at once" alone makes this suggestion spam. Ruin was designed to work exactly the way it does -- i.e., to require a one-time, all-or-nothing AP expenditure -- on purpose. And with good purpose. Exactly because Decay builds up over time, Ruin is not useless, as you claim. Yet, bizarrely, you're suggesting a radically overpowered NERF to Decay -- thus making Ruin quite useless. Quite contrary to your stated intention. And in any event, decay is an inconvenience -- at high levels a very large one, yes -- that is nonetheless easily overcome if survivors would just get off their asses and fucking coordinate. For that reason, it doesn't need to be "fixed" -- in either direction, nerf or buff. But most especially not in such a bizarre and self-conflictedly broken manner as this suggestion. --WanYao 20:48, 3 August 2008 (BST)

   Re - Blah Blah. It's the same AP spent either way. Except, of course, that the failure chance actually increases the AP that would need to be spent. How much "coordination" does a suicide repair take that can wipe out 2 months of build up with a single days worth of Survivor AP? At least this way a single Survivor could not totally repair a Ruin with one button click that somehow is supposed to wipe out potentially months of ruin build up. It's not spam, retard, because of the failure chance. Once again you show a failure to actually read what you comment on.--Zombie Lord 01:47, 4 August 2008 (BST)

   Would you like a bigger shovel with which to dig your own grave? Or perhaps just a larger shoe size to fit in that gob of yours? --WanYao 02:44, 4 August 2008 (BST)

   Ok... since you're too stupid to figure it out on your own (Extinction supporter/member and all, it's to be expected...), I'll spell it out even further. There is a HUGE difference between spending 1 AP at a time vs. being forced to spend it ALL in one shot. 1 AP at a time allows "Ruin Strafing" which completely negates the effectiveness of Decay. And supports all the whinging survivors who want to do it without coordination. Your suggestion, in spite of the failure %ages, is in fact a Ruin NERF. See... yes, I read your suggestion, and comprehended it. Fully. In ALL it's full and awesome EPIC FAIL glory. It's not my fault you're too busy pretending you're badass to actually comprehend why it's spam. --WanYao 02:51, 4 August 2008 (BST)

2. Dupe/Spam - of haggys one Link. Also, as above. -The Grimch ^{U! E!} 20:59, 3 August 2008 (BST)

   Re - It's not a dupe because of the failure chance. May as well call it a dupe because it has "Ruin" in the title.--Zombie Lord 01:51, 4 August 2008 (BST)

3. Spam - as WanYao --Funt Solo ^QT 21:16, 3 August 2008 (BST)
4. Dupe/Spam - The Dupe link that The Grimch posted, and as WanYao. Don't suggest partial ruin repair without a way for zombies to increase the amount of ruin. --drawde ^{DORIS•RR•RRF•RI!} 22:03, 3 August 2008 (BST)

   Re - And if I did that, it would get killed for "too many suggestions in one". Thought maybe a Brain Rot sub-skill that increased ruin amount might be workable if this were pushed through. Though the failure chance does increase the AP that would need to be spent, which is almost as good as zombies being able to push it up.--Zombie Lord 01:47, 4 August 2008 (BST)

   Yes, but as there is no way yet, and no guarantee that one will be implemented, I voted the way I did.--drawde ^{DORIS•RR•RRF•RI!} 10:37, 4 August 2008 (BST)

5. Spupe - As Wan and Grim. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 23:13, 3 August 2008 (BST)
6. Dupe - It is a dupe. One small difference between the two suggestions is not enough to distinguish them. And besides, this is a bad idea. --Jared^{Talk SPA CK} 02:10, 4 August 2008 (BST)
7. Not a Dupe- Why? becuase Grim's link is to an undecided suggestion. Beyond that, I don't like the chance of failure. At first, I thought it sounded like a good idea (not having to spend all at once), but then I read WanYao's vote and his explanation makes sense for the most part. The only consideration I have would be the possibility of allowing more than one person to do the work. But that isn't what is being suggested.--Pesatyel 04:02, 4 August 2008 (BST)
8. It's a dupe, whether it's undecided or not. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:53, 4 August 2008 (BST)

   Re - Not a dupe at all. It's different. It has failure chances. Retard.--Zombie Lord 03:04, 5 August 2008 (BST)

9. Spam - Because when you resort to calling voters retards, it's obvious the suggestion is rubbish, incoherent and incomplete. -- Cheese 12:02, 5 August 2008 (BST)

---