Suggestion talk:20071210 Falling Into Disrepair V1.1

Discussion Moved From Talk:Suggestions

This is content moved directly from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer an active discussion

---

---

Falling into Disrepair (Take 2)

Timestamp:	Pardus 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Tactical Addition
Scope:	Ruined Buildings
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 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.

Discussion (Falling into Disrepair (Take 2))

Hopefully this time there will be increased feedback. - Pardus 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont really like this. survivors have a hell of a time dealing with ruins anyway, and this would make it harder. also, the numbers seem way to high. 10% a day is a bit much, i'd agree to 5%.--Themonkeyman11 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Survivors have no where near as hard a time dealing with ruins as zombies do ruining.--Karek^maps?! 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-signed. - Grant 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

5% is not even worth suggesting. - Pardus 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Time has finally convinced me that ruin is typically more helpful for harmans. Also, the minimum might be a little bit too low. 15% or 20%? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Already tried 15%. - Pardus 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, I meant the lowest % to unruinify could be 15 or 20%.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine just to get it past. - Pardus 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In facts I'd like a AP cost rise (even heavily) instead.For example,2 AP per day.... 1>3(one day)>5(two days)>7>9>11>13>15(a week) and stop at 15 AP.I just don't want building that have me repairing a building for a week just because the RNG play with me.......I might vote Keep on the AP sort(assuming you don't make it 4 AP a day or higher,3 AP is kind of heavy already)--Perne 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Discussion above the line is from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer active.

Discussion on Voting

Discussion on Voting goes under here

Discussion on the suggestion page

Regards to Perne's suggestion above about a direct AP cost rising with time.

This ignores how the game works. There's no other situation where the AP cost of an action rises, and no reason to make one now. -- Rutherford 15:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly true, ransack causes AP cost to increase, and so does the worst skill in the game, headshot. At least this is a percent thing and doesn't work whenever you kill anything, instead you have to spend not only a significant amount of AP but also a significant amount of time.--Karek^maps?! 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Spam

Nonauthor or additional Res go under here

Alternatives

Since nobody likes using the development page I'll work it here. 5%/day minimum 30%? - Pardus 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Karek on the voting section - 50% minumum with 10% a day is fine. Anything less than 50% for me will result in a kill vote. --Ryiis 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything more than 40% seems pointless. - Pardus 17:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Pardus. Doesn't sound to me like Karek or Ryiis has ever had to deal with Barricades from the zombie side. That's what ruin is *supposed* to be, the zombie's answer to a barricade. It's not serving that purpose now, and still wouldn't under a 50% minimum. - Mister Nathan Marbles 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Karek is a big zed head, so he knows, but i figure he's just trying to convince me to wedge issue it. (get it in the game extremely weak so it can be increased later) - Pardus 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked his profile after I posted that and realized I was an idiot. *Would* it be increased later though? Seems to me it'd just get put in to stop zombie complaints about the uselessness of ruin and then never touched again. Kevan seems a little more... shall we say "sympathetic"? ...to the survivor side of things. - Mister Nathan Marbles 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

50% is a big number, especially with the RNG, anything more than that and you're dooming survivors to similar fates as zombies with barricades. Zombies with barricades sucks but it's a case of that needing to be lessened, making something as big or as bad just detracts from survivor fun and doesn't add any to zombie's. 50% is somewhat reasonable because it means that it's not a guaranteed actions but it still reasonably possible.--Karek^maps?! 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So that's 3% or 5% with a minimum of 50%? Because we have to make it last two weeks!!! - Pardus 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the two weeks, two weeks is absurdly long. 5 days is far more reasonable.--Karek^maps?! 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

10%/day for 5 days for a total of 50% by then end of that 5 days sounds better, and will allow people to see the results of their actions. It will also free the zombies up from guarding the ruined building. By the way, I do play a zombie alt, so I know how frustrating barricades can be when all you want are tasty bra!nz --Ryiis 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Barricades suck for zombies, but go ahead and try suggesting they get nerfed. Go ahead. Try it. I'm just saying that if we're going to have suck on one side of the game, and if we're going to have a skill that supposedly inflicts a taste of that suck on the other side of the game, then that skill should actually do that. - Mister Nathan Marbles 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There would be no point, there are already suggestions in peer reviewed with that purpose.--Karek^maps?! 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to "Less Effective Barricades" under "Buildings: Multiple Types," then yes. There is a proposal to change some of the more unrealistic and counter-intuitive features of barricades. However, unless I suck at the Wiki there is *not* a proposal that would fundamentally change the dynamic of survivors having to spend far less AP to build a barricade than a zombie has to spend to tear it down. If a lone zombie wants to get inside a Very Strongly barricaded building it will spend almost all of its AP doing so unless it gets lucky. A thoroughly "fallen into disrepair" building should likewise require a significant AP investment from a single survivor, or it's nowhere close to balanced. - Mister Nathan Marbles 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)