Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings

20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings

Jon Pyre 16:39, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Balance, Skill

Suggestion scope
Survivors, Ruined Buildings

Suggestion description
It's my opinion that no action in UD should require 30, 40 or more AP to be used in a single click. For this reason I think ruin is overpowered. However I also think ruin is fantastic. It lets zombies take over territory and punishes survivors for not retaking it quickly enough. I don't want to make it easy for survivors to regain buildings through an easy piecemeal repair system that lets them eliminate 1AP of building damage with one click, as previous suggestions have proposed.

What I suggest is allowing survivors to either repair everything in one giant click as currently, and also be able repair in a piecemeal system, but a difficult punitive one that zombies can counteract.

I suggest a Construction subskill called Repair. Survivors with repair in addition to having the [Repair Building XAP] button will also be able to repair a building in stages by clicking on their toolbox.

Repairing in stages isn't as effective as spending a long time fixing up the place. Clicking the toolbox uses 1AP and has a 50% chance of reducing the building's ruin by 1AP. So if the ruin count is 48 you could spend about 16AP to bring it down to 40, and then return the next day to finish it with a single click.

Zombies will be able to counteract these partial repairs though. If a survivor has partially repaired a ruined building the building description would be changed with a message like "partial repairs have been made to damaged areas of the building." If partial repairs have been made then zombies with Ransack would have the ruin button reappear. One click would completely undo all the partial repairs that have been made. This would bring the buildings Ruin total back to its normal ruin count for how long its been wrecked. So if a survivor repaired a building from 48 to 40 if that zombie ruined it that would restore it's ruin back up to 48.

I think this is a balanced approach. To recap:

Benefits of Repair Skill

• Allows partial repair of buildings
• Still allows one click complete repairing if you prefer

Downside of Repair Skill

• Requires a second tier skill
• Still requires a toolbox
• Only has a 50% chance of success with each AP spent (and we know that randomness in UD often results in unlikely unfavorable statistics so giving it a chance of failure is a far bigger nerf than just requiring 2AP per click)
• Zombies with ruin can undo partial repairs for 1AP, no matter how many AP a survivor has spent.

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 - I saw this an thought "There's no way he can make this an even suggestion" but you've surprised me and managed it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:34, 4 August 2008 (BST)
2. Keep - A rare keep vote. This is a ruin/ap usage compromise that I can get behind.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  18:34, 4 August 2008 (BST)
3. Keep I think the idea of suicide repair is a bit much. I've never seen a zombie movie where one person heroically repairs a building until they collapse out of exhaustion and then lay there unconscious for several hours until zombies come and eat them. This is a balanced approach to let people tackle extremely ruined buildings. --Jon Pyre 19:54, 4 August 2008 (BST)
4. Keep/Confused - This suggestion is far better than the last ruin suggestion, but I'm confused as to why one would bother having both of these options available...? Does this mean that the simple "one click" option would have a set penalty of a certain amount of AP, as opposed to doing it in stages? --Private Mark 00:01, 5 August 2008 (BST)
   • Re The downside of doing it in stages is that there's a 50% chance of a success. So to repair 20AP of ruin this way you might spend 40AP, or even more. Repairing with a single click is much more AP efficient. However at high ruin levels it might make more sense to repair a bit piecemeal before you just single click fix --Jon Pyre 07:25, 5 August 2008 (BST)
5. Keep/Change - Drop the ability to repair the Ruin with one giant click.--Zombie Lord 02:53, 5 August 2008 (BST)
6. Keep - I like this. However, I do believe that significant amounts of part-repair should be visible from the street, say when the initial cost has been reduced by 25%? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 04:18, 5 August 2008 (BST)

   Keep Even though some negative people vote KILL ( i wont mention the names) , this is a good idea. But still it would be easier if you saw how much you needed to fix the building and you could decide how many AP will you spend. Unsigned vote struck. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:44, 5 August 2008 (BST)

7. Keep - This is good. Not perfect, but Keepable nonetheless. -- Cheese 11:45, 5 August 2008 (BST)
8. Keep - A new skill is sorely needed in my world. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:39, 5 August 2008 (BST)
9. Keep - Acceptable. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:57, 5 August 2008 (BST)
10. Keep - Interesting idea. Will help make UD more tactical. B0ba Fett 17:25, 5 August 2008 (BST)
11. Keep - I like the idea. It would also allow a few survivors to all spend AP to help repair a building. With this, there could be building teams going around repairing buildings in Malton. Armada 19:36, 5 August 2008 (BST)
12. Keep - This encourages teamwork with survivors and allows partial repairs to buildings while still giving zombies their advantage with ruin. --Karec 21:22, 5 August 2008 (BST)
13. Keep - I think it is a good idea as it dosen't unblanace it for zombies, but yet makes it fair to humans who would not have to spen a days worth of AP on reapairing a singal building. Michaleson 23:17, 5 August 2008 (GMT)
14. Keep - Seems like a good fix --Diablor 02:52, 6 August 2008 (BST)
15. Keep - as those above. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:09, 6 August 2008 (BST)
16. Keep/Change - Makes teamwork a little more encouraged, however, make it so you don't get XP as a result of a non-total repair, because otherwise survivors could just repair them 1AP at a time and wind up with 48XP in a single AP load. --• LtZurSee slapped your nose with a newspaper for a heal from CORAM (0 seconds ago) 10:23, 13 August 2008 (BST)
17. Keep - I like this one.--Jamie Cantwel3 ^TalkAll glory to the Hypnotoad! 23:54, 14 August 2008 (BST)
18. Keep- keep it--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 06:46, 16 August 2008 (BST)
19. Keep-Surprisingly balanced suggestion, but don't include XP and then it will be unbalanced. Linkthewindow 05:41, 17 August 2008 (BST)
20. KEEP Just think about how qui8ckly Malton can be flattened when the next Big Bash hits. DrakonMacar

Kill Votes

1. Kill I think. Is this better (AP wise) than either repairing all (And probably dying)? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:31, 4 August 2008 (BST)
   • Re You spend more AP overall repairing partially. Possibly a lot more. But it has the advantage of not requiring you to possibly go into the negatives and be forced to idle out in an unbarricaded building. Especially an unbarricaded building that might be the only unruined building around. It'd stand out like a sore thumb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon Pyre (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
     • Re Then why do it? Surely its better to idle out, and die. By the time a zombie attacks you, kills you and reransacks the building, you can be up revived and back.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 4 August 2008 (BST)
2. Kill - This is a much better suggestion than the last partial repair suggestions, but I still find the concept asinine. However, since the suggestion does have merit, not voting spam. --ZiP^MH+LUE 22:05, 4 August 2008 (BST)
3. Change/Kill - As someone who plays as survivors in both groups and as a 'loner,' i see the benefit of allowing for gameplay without meta gaming. I role play in a way that suicide repairs don't make since for me, and it can be hard to get other survivors to work with me. but i don't think this is quite enough. very good improvement, though. i say if there's going to be any suggested changes, let it work out in the talk page for a while before it comes back as a suggestion. most people think its a bad idea, so it will have to be adjusted more to prevent strafe repairing. perhaps if a survivor partially repairs a building, they can't repair anything until that building is finished? call it... 'workmanship pride' haha. - Tylerisfat 01:26, 5 August 2008 (BST)
4. Kill - As Wan Yao, but it's not awful and some thought has clearly gone into it, so not a Spam vote for me, --Papa Moloch 02:58, 5 August 2008 (BST)
5. Kill/Change - I will never approve the whininess until there is equality, you want survivors to be able to undo a month+ of not trying to fix a building in a few days with no danger you need to make it balanced. The only way, that I can think of, to do that is to allow zombies to add 1 AP to the fix cost for every every additional ap they spend on ruining(let them ruin as much as they want). That would be balanced, it even costs zombies 4 more AP to get it in that state than it does for survivor to fix it. Anything else means that being able to run away is a significant buff that makes it far easier and removes the incentives to actively visiting areas and coordinating the current system provides.--Karek^maps?! 03:38, 5 August 2008 (BST)
   • Re In some ways the current system discourages survivor coordination since only one person can repair a ruin. Allowing several people to tackle it together would actually promote survivors forming groups. --Jon Pyre 07:22, 5 August 2008 (BST)
     • Re, No, it will encourage strafe runs, you do remember how little coordination there was in strafe runs right? I understand what you're getting at but you're ignoring the game and the playerbase to make a point based on the game and the playerbase, were that this would encourage coordination but it won't, definitely not so much as a system that forces you to coordinate or die like the current one. Changing it in this manner just means the users won't coordinate, they will just take longer to do it with little to no risk, just like pretty much everything else in the game where the option of coordinating means fast and bigger rewards.--Karek^maps?! 12:56, 5 August 2008 (BST)
6. I dunno, the 50% success is the ONLY difference between this and the previous suggestions. It IS a significant difference, true, but it is still, effectively, repair straffing for 1 AP per rather than the whole cost. What about maximimzing the AP cost to 20 instead. That way the survivor is still having to spend a lot in one click, but not necessarily ALL of it. Failing that, I think the 50% should be lowered (say 30%).--Pesatyel 05:04, 5 August 2008 (BST)
7. Kill - it's not bad, but i think the mechanic is fine the way it is.--xoxo 07:33, 5 August 2008 (BST)

   Kill - I'd rather just put a cap on the amount of AP to be spent. Unsigned vote struck.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:01, 5 August 2008 (BST)

8. Unfortunate Kill - It's my opinion that no action in UD should require 30, 40 or more AP to be used in a single click. For this reason I think ruin is overpowered. However I also think there is a better way to go about this, I don't like the idea of partial repairs. Decent suggestion, just want something different. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:28, 6 August 2008 (BST)
9. KILL - This is not a helpful idea.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 08:45, 11 August 2008 (BST)
10. Kill Kill-Kill-kill!! /-:--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 20:06, 14 August 2008 (BST)
11. Kill - Because as balanced as this is, it's still the survivors fault for not repairing it sooner, and that needs to be reflected ingame -- Necrodeus ^{T M!} 20:08, 16 August 2008 (BST)
12. Kill The only thing I really like about this is that this system won't let survivors go into the negative AP. I hate the fact that this game lets you go into the negatives. This one click at a time system would stop that. But that isn't enough for me to support it. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:09, 17 August 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Much better than the last partial repair suggestion... However, it's still spam. First of all, a new skill is never a good idea, for reasons any regular on the suggestions pages knows (or should know) already. That, combined with the fact that this suggestion allows for "repair strafing"... which is just survivors whinging because they now need to coordinate to take back burbs they've been too lazy to take back sooner... Your mechanic is much more balanced than the last atrocious suggestion; however, it still makes zombies have to work harder and spend more AP to overcome a problem that stems originally from survivor laziness and stupidity. Just say NO! to repair strafing. --WanYao 17:05, 4 August 2008 (BST)
2. Spam - As Wan. Allows an entire suburb to only be at 1 level of ruin, with no visible difference to having the entire place at 30. This just doesn't fly. --Ocular ^Druuuuu17:23, 4 August 2008 (BST)
   • Re If zombies want to maintain ruin shouldn't they work for it as well? If survivors are stupid enough to repair strafe (and waste thousands of AP doing it) then zombies can have a good laugh undoing all their hard work for a single click. --Jon Pyre 19:42, 4 August 2008 (BST)
3. Gonna have to go with Wan on this one. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:51, 4 August 2008 (BST)
4. Spam - I love how Wan always hits it on the head, makes it so much easier for me...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 18:56, 16 August 2008 (BST)

---

Voting Rules

Current Suggestions Advice to Suggesters Adding options to your suggestion is not good practice. Others will not vote on the options, only the main body; please don't ask them to do so. Once you have posted your suggestion, it is considered complete. Altering the suggestion mechanics after voting has begun nullifies existing votes, and is considered an abuse of the suggestions system. Doing so will result in your suggestion being removed from the voting system to removed suggestions, where you can work out the details and resubmit later if you desire. It is preferred that you remove your own suggestion and resubmit a new version with changes, if changes are needed. "Notes" added for clarification purposes, and correcting spelling/typos are permitted. When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it with the clarification included for the voters who have already placed their votes. Advice to Voters You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated. Before voting please read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested Ideas Page to read about concepts that have been generally considered unworkable in the past. You do not need to follow the guidelines on these pages but they are worth consideration before casting a vote. One vote per user. No exceptions. You cannot use multiple wiki accounts to vote on a suggestion. To Vote, use the [edit] button at the top of the voting section, then enter your vote in the the proper format to the end of the relevant section (keep/kill/spam). It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion. Votes must include a signature in order to be considered valid votes. To sign a vote, use --~~~~. Please remember to sign your votes! Unsigned votes will be deleted after 30 minutes or when found. Each Suggestion will be open to voting for two (2) weeks, measured from the suggestion's Timestamp, unless it is a Dupe or Spam. If, at the end of that time, there are two thirds (2/3) more Keep votes than Kill votes, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page. Otherwise, the Suggestion will be moved to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page.

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:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings). 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 Keep, for Suggestions that you believe have merit. Kill, for Suggestions that you believe do not have merit. If you need to discuss a rule fix, use the discussion page. Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions. Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks. Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM. Spam votes will be counted as Kill when votes are tallied. Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion. Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described on the cycling suggestions page. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied. Humourous, for suggestions that are obviously intended to be satirical, or of comedic value only.}} Suggestions can be removed with Humourous votes as described on the cycling suggestions page. If the criterion described there are not fulfilled, the suggestion must remain for the whole two weeks.

Invalid Votes Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide. X should be implemented first is not a valid reason for a vote. You are voting on the merit of THIS suggestion, not how it compares to others. Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote.

Comments Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting. Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

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 Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT) Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT) Keep - Good sugestion. no signature --FakeSuggester 07:39, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT) Kill Votes Kill - This is a terrible idea, but you can totally fix it up. --NegativeGal 06:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Re - Please be more specific about how to fix it on the discussion page. --MrSuggester 14:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Re - Sure, I have detailed my proposed fixes here. --NegativeGal 23:38, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Kill - You will eat my poopie and love it! --PooEater 11:12, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT) Note - Inane vote removed. Defend in discussion. --DaModerator 11:13, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT) Spam/Dupe Votes Spam - Kung Fu CB Mama on Wheels is an inappropriate Survivor Class. --NoFunAtAll 09:01, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT) Dupe - Duplicate Suggestion --AnotherSuggester 05:01, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)