Suggestion:20100505 Smashing the place up: Difference between revisions
Misanthropy (talk | contribs) |
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) m (Protected "Suggestion:20100505 Smashing the place up": scheduled or something [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) |
||
(25 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> | |||
{{reviewed|Zombie Skill}} | |||
{{Suggestion Navigation}} | {{Suggestion Navigation}} | ||
{{TOCright}} | {{TOCright}} | ||
</noinclude> | |||
==={{PAGENAME}}=== | ==={{PAGENAME}}=== | ||
{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:14, 5 May 2010 (BST) | {{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:14, 5 May 2010 (BST) | ||
Line 30: | Line 33: | ||
#'''Keep''' Good.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2}} 17:36, 5 May 2010 (BST) | #'''Keep''' Good.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2}} 17:36, 5 May 2010 (BST) | ||
#'''Keep''' As I said before, this works. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 17:53, 5 May 2010 (BST) | #'''Keep''' As I said before, this works. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 17:53, 5 May 2010 (BST) | ||
#'''Keep''' In its original form, I'd have needed to give more thought to smashing gennies and the like, but if it's just decorative items, as it is now, I see no issue at all. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:59, 5 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' Makes perfect sense -- {{User:Sage Carr/sig}} 22:04, 5 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' - Sure, why not. --{{User:Another_alias/Signature}} 22:09, 5 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''snooP ING AS usual, I see''' -{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 22:24, 5 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' - Balance? Logic? Barhah? It's yours, my friend, as long as you have enough rupees... Sorry Ross, I can't give discredit. Come back when you're a little, <big>MMMM</big>, richer. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 02:39, 6 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' - Pass it through. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 05:14, 6 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' - I guess this makes sense. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 06:18, 6 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''keep''' - It's so obvious that it shouldn't even need suggesting --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:50, 6 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' - This suggestion doesn't imbalance anything, it removes frustration from the game, and it makes logical sense. Good job!--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 11:45, 7 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' [[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 14:37, 8 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep''' {{User:Quentin Julius/Sig2}} 14:41, 8 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Keep'''--{{User:Rictor_Stilwell/sig}} 17:15, 8 May 2010 (BST) | |||
'''Kill Votes''' | '''Kill Votes''' | ||
#'''Kill''' - In theory it's a sound idea and makes perfect sense. Why would vases and the like remain intact if you're going all Incredible Hulk on the place? But consider the AP spent in searching and installing those decorative items. If they were all automatically destroyed by simply ransacking the building it would be quite disheartening to the art collectors out there who've spent a lot of time building their mini Louvre. The more experienced Zambah will likely not bother to waste the AP in trashing them, but the babahs may need that extra XP oomph to gain that vital skill, so why take that away from them? Besides, we wouldn't get such lovely's as this<br />''You smash a stuffed beaver.''<br />...and that would be tragic. [[Image:Finethen.gif]] {{User:Kempy/sig}} 13:12, 7 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#:I'm not saying remove the current mechanic. If a building was only ransacked, then you could ransack a beaver as usual. Its only after that 5th ransack, when the whole place is ruined when everything left is destroyed. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 13:19, 7 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#:: Ah, in which case, forget I spoke. My zambah doesn't do beavers anyway. He's far happier nomnom'ing on a snake. {{User:Kempy/sig}} 13:36, 7 May 2010 (BST) | |||
#'''Kill''' - no, leave some XP for the younglings <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 15:11 15 May 2010 (BST)</span></small> | |||
'''Spam/Dupe Votes''' | '''Spam/Dupe Votes''' | ||
Line 44: | Line 62: | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> |
Latest revision as of 21:17, 21 May 2010
Closed | |
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Reviewed. |
20100505 Smashing the place up
RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:14, 5 May 2010 (BST)
Suggestion type
Slight Zombie change.
Suggestion scope
Zombies.
Suggestion description
So say I'm ransacking a mall, As I spend ap, I get messages like
You smash through window displays and pull shelves from the wall.
Put simply, I'm tearing the place to shreds, yet all those Decorative items remain intact. I have to expend an AP (and gain an 1XP) to destroy each of them individually.
Simply put. When a building is ruined all decorative items are automatically destroyed, and the zombie who ruined the building gets 1xp for every decorative item destroyed this way. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:14, 5 May 2010 (BST)
Voting Section
Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
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
- Keep THIS is my justification. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:14, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep Anything for the zombies. --Devorac 17:04, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep Saves a lot of clicking for some minor crap. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:19, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep Good.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 17:36, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep As I said before, this works. 17:53, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep In its original form, I'd have needed to give more thought to smashing gennies and the like, but if it's just decorative items, as it is now, I see no issue at all. —Aichon— 19:59, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep Makes perfect sense -- Sage|Carr Cobra 22:04, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep - Sure, why not. --ZiPMH+LUE 22:09, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- snooP ING AS usual, I see - Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:24, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep - Balance? Logic? Barhah? It's yours, my friend, as long as you have enough rupees... Sorry Ross, I can't give discredit. Come back when you're a little, MMMM, richer. --VVV RPMBG 02:39, 6 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep - Pass it through. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 05:14, 6 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep - I guess this makes sense. -- 06:18, 6 May 2010 (BST)
- keep - It's so obvious that it shouldn't even need suggesting --Honestmistake 11:50, 6 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep - This suggestion doesn't imbalance anything, it removes frustration from the game, and it makes logical sense. Good job!--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 11:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep BoboTalkClown 14:37, 8 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep Q. JuliusTBH 14:41, 8 May 2010 (BST)
- Keep--CorndogheroT-S-Z 17:15, 8 May 2010 (BST)
Kill Votes
- Kill - In theory it's a sound idea and makes perfect sense. Why would vases and the like remain intact if you're going all Incredible Hulk on the place? But consider the AP spent in searching and installing those decorative items. If they were all automatically destroyed by simply ransacking the building it would be quite disheartening to the art collectors out there who've spent a lot of time building their mini Louvre. The more experienced Zambah will likely not bother to waste the AP in trashing them, but the babahs may need that extra XP oomph to gain that vital skill, so why take that away from them? Besides, we wouldn't get such lovely's as this
You smash a stuffed beaver.
...and that would be tragic. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 13:12, 7 May 2010 (BST)- I'm not saying remove the current mechanic. If a building was only ransacked, then you could ransack a beaver as usual. Its only after that 5th ransack, when the whole place is ruined when everything left is destroyed. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:19, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- Ah, in which case, forget I spoke. My zambah doesn't do beavers anyway. He's far happier nomnom'ing on a snake. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 13:36, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm not saying remove the current mechanic. If a building was only ransacked, then you could ransack a beaver as usual. Its only after that 5th ransack, when the whole place is ruined when everything left is destroyed. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:19, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- Kill - no, leave some XP for the younglings -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:11 15 May 2010 (BST)
Spam/Dupe Votes
Voting Rules | ||
Advice to Suggesters
Advice to Voters
| ||
Rules for Discussions
Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions. This page and archived suggestion pages only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss the suggestion or vote here, please use this page's Talk page (Suggestion talk:20100505 Smashing the place up). Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. Developing Suggestions can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted. | ||
Valid Votes
| ||
Invalid Votes
| ||
Comments
| ||
All Caps
Try to avoid YELLING, writing in bold, or using italics, except when emphasizing a point which has escaped other voters. | ||
VOTING EXAMPLES
Keep Votes
Kill Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes
|