Suggestion:20081008 Wear and Tear

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

20081008 Wear and Tear

RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:37, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Ruin change.

Suggestion scope

Suggestion description
Large buildings with multiple floors and shops have more systems and areas that are likely to be destroyed or damaged by zombies, and become harder to repair, especially as malls are a major battleground in Malton. However because of their size they require more effort to ransack.

In Game Terms

Mall squares take 8 ransack attempts to ruin, but once ruined deteriorate at twice the rate of smaller buildings (repair costs = 2ap a day).

Note This Doesn't fix anything really. Its a tweak, if it was implemented i think it would be interesting to see whether it encouraged zombies to salt the land more, or encourage survivors to retake quickly, or move away from malls to other trp's (the horror!), i just feel its slightly more realistic (which in itself is no valid reason). But hey. Vote.

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. Keep - The doubled ruin-rate more than compensates for the increased cost to ruin. However, due to the relatively short time malls usually remain in ruins, I doubt this would be a severe blow to survivors. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:33, 8 October 2008 (BST)
  2. Keep Its been 3 hours, and it hasn't yet been spammed to hell, so yeah, I'm like, the Author. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:56, 8 October 2008 (BST)
  3. Keep - The only way to determine the effects of this tweak will be to implement it, and I'm willing to give it a shot. It can be easily changed back if it proves game-breaking, as no players will invest anything in the change. -- Galaxy125 00:42, 9 October 2008 (BST)
  4. Keep - As above. Besides, this could mean a greater use of the "Salt the Land" tactic, or means that survivors will now be desperate to retake malls after a seige. Oh, and Noob question, but could you also clarify how much AP the first day ruin will cost. Like, if survivors immediatly retake a mall, will it cost them 1 or 2 AP to repair? Linkthewindow 03:51, 9 October 2008 (BST)
  5. Keep - Let's see what happens. My guess is that there'll be a Third Big Bash (or whatever number we're up to right now) immediately after it is implemented. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 03:55, 9 October 2008 (BST)
  6. keep ok--Airborne88Zzz1.JPGT|Z.Quiz|PSS 00:01, 12 October 2008 (BST)
  7. Keep - Yeah, I like. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:56, 12 October 2008 (BST)
    Keep Malls are extremely important buildings to survivors. They should have to pay a little more ap to repair them once they've been ruined and zombies should get that little extra help after they've taken a mall. Malls are so important that once a mall is ransacked it's just a matter of time before the survivors retake it. When has anyone ever heard of survivors saying "ahh, Lumber mall's repair cost is too high, let's just abandon it" Silisquish 02:43, 13 October 2008 (BST)
  8. Keep- i don't think it'll ever pass but i think it would be interesting if it did- keep. --Irounds 00:10, 18 October 2008 (BST)
    Keep --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 05:45, 18 October 2008 (BST) Unjustified vote struck. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:10, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Size is not represented by a block of game space, just as AP is not a time measurement. Increasing the amount of ransack successes, and therefore further nerfing ruin earns this a kill. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:02, 8 October 2008 (BST)
    Disussion moved to talk page per author's instructions. Linkthewindow 03:52, 9 October 2008 (BST)
  2. Kill - Obviously this would motivate survivors to retake fallen malls as soon as possible, intensifying the game's focus on them. Malls really don't need to be focused on more than they already are. Unnecessary game change.--Jiangyingzi 22:01, 9 October 2008 (BST)
  3. Kill/Change - The ruin damage rate is already high. Twice that amount is just rediculous! Now on account of malls being a larger area, I would be more inclined to agree with a higher INITIAL repair cost at the normal rate...--Kolechovski 16:43, 11 October 2008 (BST)
  4. Weak Kill - I really don't like the fact that it'd make the already crumbling survivor base even weaker, but I do like the fact that it makes it harder. Quiet honestly I'm sick of nukes for Zombies. --• LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago)AU 04:32, 13 October 2008 (BST)
    RE Whaaaat? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:36, 13 October 2008 (BST)
  5. Kill - I can't really see the point in this. What you're suggesting already exists, by virture of the fact that each square of the mall can be barricaded or ruined seperate of the others, and must be reparied in the same way. In other words, in order to completely revive a mall, you need to unruin all of the squares. It would be unbalancing to make the ruin rate even higher. ...--Villard 15:38 (GMT +3) 13 October 2008
  6. kill i don't get the point --A Big F'ing Dog 18:18, 15 October 2008 (BST)
    RE Le sigh. There seems a lot of that at the moment. I believe its a suggestion that aims to make malls harder to ruin and harder to repair. Better? For an alternative explanation see Silisquish's keep vote above.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:05, 15 October 2008 (BST)
  7. Kill - to harsh Sanpedro 23:46, 15 October 2008 (BST)
    REFair enough. But too harsh to who exactly? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:58, 16 October 2008 (BST)
    Kill - It will take just few more AP too ruin (3) but it could take a lot more AP to rebuild. The ratio isn't fair. - ~~ Unsigned vote struck. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:17, 23 October 2008 (BST)
    RE Until this is struck for being unsigned I have some points. It takes zombies 5ap to do something it takes survivors 1ap to repair. After 5 days it takes survivors 5ap. So it is unfair (as you put it) before this time for zombies and unfair after this time to survivors. This suggestion would change this ratio so after 4 days it would then be unfair to survivors. After 1 day, it would make the ratio much worse for zombies. (Wow. Im almost annoyed about this. Another suggestion crashes and burns. I might submit a flak degradation suggestion now that the main reason it cant be implemented is gone. )--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:27, 16 October 2008 (BST)
  8. Kill - I dont think malls should decay faster than any other building, nor do i think we should discourage people from going to the mall.--Tjayh913 01:02, 18 October 2008 (BST)
  9. Kill I've been swayed by Jiangyingzi and Funt Solo's argument. I can imagine some survivors will overreact, "ohmigawdz we have to take the malls and defend them forever or we'll have a 100ap repair bill, Kevan hates survivors!". Once a mall will fall people will work even harder to recapture it. Note: you could also suggested this ruin idea to NTs (delicate scientific equipment, etc.) it wouldn't have this problem as NTs can't be overemphasized. --Silisquish 05:30, 18 October 2008 (BST)
  10. Kill - Yet again Rosslessness proves how close he came to giving himself a truly appropriate nickname. Only four letters off. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:34, 18 October 2008 (BST)
    Again? And 4? I count 3? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:55, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - I just don't follow the reasoning. You say you want to move survivors away from malls and to other TRPs. There's a problem with that, though: things are easier to find in malls. That's why survivors congregate there and attempt to hold onto malls: it's tactically a wise thing to do, even if just for the high FAK find rates (never mind the ammo). On the other hand, creating more reasons to be precious about malls (as this suggestion does) will make them even more of a focal point of conflict. Therefore, in trying to move survivors away, this suggestion would actually do the opposite. Also, it's a shot in the foot for river tactics, as it would promote the holding of a mall over letting it go until the horde has passed. (And that last point reinforces the previous one.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:47, 8 October 2008 (BST)
    RE To quote myself "i think it would be interesting to see whether it encouraged zombies to salt the land more, or encourage survivors to retake quickly, or move away from malls to other trp's (the horror!)" I don't want players to do anything, im just curious what they will do. But yes, a lot of what you say above could, and would happen. (I maintain that funt should spend more time on talk:suggestions as he does explain things without imploding.) --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:03, 8 October 2008 (BST)
    Re - FUCKING GRAAAAGHHH! *POP* (Just noting that I only put this in the Spam section because I don't see myself ever voting Keep on it, not because I think it's ridiculous. Also - too busy with other projects to take part in talk:suggestions except in passing.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:12, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Personal tools