Suggestion:20071012 Fixing Ruined Buildings Costs 10 AP

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

20071012 Fixing Ruined Buildings Costs 10 AP

Slicer 01:49, 12 October 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Ruin change

Suggestion scope
Ruined buildings

Suggestion description
Fixing ruined buildings should cost 10 AP. Simple as that.

Let's face it folks: Every high-level player and his grandma has a toolbox, and the ones that don't are too busy trenchcoating to notice. Right now it costs 6 AP for a zombie to ruin a building and one single AP for a survivor to fix. This is supposed to be serious damage, not "oh I'll just go ahead and sweep the place up". Right now, survivors can cade strafe and the zombies are at an AP disadvantage- if the zombies try to take back territory through Ruin, they're still at an AP disadvantage.

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 Author vote. Slicer 01:50, 12 October 2007 (BST)
2. Keep Zombies are weakass. BTW..u know its going to be killed by 100s of survivors..so why bother. :P --Brainz 01:53, 12 October 2007 (BST)
3. Keep I like the idea, and don't mind the number 10. --Karlsbad 02:22, 12 October 2007 (BST)
4. Keep - The change is a good idea, but the numbers are harsh. Knock it down to five action points. Oh and to Nali: Before calling someone a 'moron' you may like to get your facts straight. Toolboxes have an encumbrance level of 16%, not 20%. --The Hierophant 06:03, 12 October 2007 (BST)
5. Keep - I actually think this deserves discussion. 6 AP would be more ideal, but as long as it's under 12 it seems pretty reasonable, just another way to force survivors to work together but still has no effect on the largest part of the survivor game.--Karek^maps?! 08:45, 12 October 2007 (BST)
6. Keep - I like it, but maybe the cost should be a little less than 10AP. Survivors do have to carry around the toolbox. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 08:50, 12 October 2007 (BST)
7. Keep/change - I think 5 or 6 AP is better but it definately should be more than 1.Studoku 09:40, 12 October 2007 (BST)
8. Keep/Change - As Studoku. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 10:25, 12 October 2007 (BST)
9. Keep/change --Seems fair. I play as a survivor most of the time, but when I play as a zed, ransacking feels like a waste of time. 6 ap seems about right. --MrCoolantSpray 16:00, 12 October 2007 (BST)
10. keep An interesting idea.--Thekooks 18:11, 21 October 2007 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill/Change - How about 5.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:59, 12 October 2007 (BST)
2. Kill/Change i like the essance of the idea, even playing normaly as a survivour, but that's way too high, lower that down abit, maybe also lower the amount to ruin (take it down an ap or two) it shoulden't be on the same level as reviving someone in my opinion--Zach016 02:16, 12 October 2007 (BST)
3. Kill - Don't forget a survivor need to kill all the zombies on the building BEFORE repair it. and if the zombies guarding the place kill him, next survivor trying need to kill ANOTHER zombie. I will accept 3 or 4 AP max to repair, 10 is overpower zombie side. --Kaipirinha 03:07, 12 October 2007 (BST)
4. Kill - Repairing doesn't need to cost any more than it already does. What you're supposed to do when you Ruin a building is STAY INSIDE IT (or just return to it after spending your daily AP). If a Ruined building has any Zombies inside, it can't be fixed until they've all been killed. This means that to get the building back to normal, a Survivor has to spend AP searching for a toolkit, which comes with a hefty encumbrance, then spend AP searching for guns and/or ammo, then spend AP and ammo killing the Zombies, then spend AP dumping the bodies, then spend AP fixing the building, then spend AP rebarricading the building. Add in the cost of travel between safehouse, resource buildings, and the Ruined building. That's a pretty goddamn big return on the 6ish AP it cost to Ruin the building in the first place. This tactic is called "Salt the Earth." All Zombies should try to end their days inside a Ruined building, especially a Ruined NT. --Steakfish 02:47, 12 October 2007 (BST)

   Then why bother ruining it? Why not just leave it as "Sleep in a ransacked NT", the way it was before? Right now, after the zombies are cleared out, a survivor can clean the place up with 1 AP- the way they could if the building was merely ransacked! So by that logic the extra 5 AP to go from Ransack to Ruin is just a way of letting everyone know the status of the building, and doing the minor detail of dropping anyone trying to FR in (spending 1 AP, but saving survivors lots of AP on finding entry points). Why should an occupying zombie waste its AP? Slicer 03:42, 12 October 2007 (BST)

   You Ruin it because it lowers the search rates even more than Ransack, and because it requires a toolkit to fix (Ransack doesn't), and to disrupt the freerunning network (especially if there are more Ruined buildings nearby). --Steakfish 03:42, 14 October 2007 (BST)

5. Kill - As said above, 10 is way too much. I think 4-6 AP would be much more reasonable. -J. A. 03:08, 12 October 2007 (BST)
6. Kill - Ruin has had too many changes already. Leave ruin alone and think of something original for god's sake! Yoko Ono 03:18, 12 October 2007 (BST)
7. 10 is too high. What about a random amount from 4 to 6?--Pesatyel 03:52, 12 October 2007 (BST)
8. Kill / Change - As above...I like the idea, but 10 AP is excessive. I think three-ish is more appropriate.--Jiangyingzi 03:56, 12 October 2007 (BST)
9. Change Don't make personal attacks Nali, And reduce the AP to 5, or something. As another option, that suvivors may like, you pay like 20 AP to not have to use a toolbox fro repair. And its 16% encuberance, not 20%. BoboTalkClown 03:59, 12 October 2007 (BST)
10. Kill - Not everyone has a toolbox. They take up a lot of space. That's why ruin is even effective in the first place. --Pdeq 04:43, 12 October 2007 (BST)
11. Kill - 10AP is faaaaaaar too much. Though I would prefer not to see a change at all, I'd be comfortable with an increased cost in the 3-4AP range. --the one, the only, sushiknight ^{(talk contribs HARD E.N.D.)} 05:53, 12 October 2007 (BST)
12. Change - The AP cost should be lowered to five or so. Ten AP is just too much. --Sonofagun18 06:00, 12 October 2007 (BST)
13. Kill - 10 AP is waaaaay too much. Also, also, as others have commented... the zombie-human AP imbalance is partially mythological... in that it takes a LOT of AP, both attacking and getting the ammo, to kill a zombie so that you can fix a ruined building in the first place. Zombies are undead barricades in ruined buildings.... You wanna make Ruin/Ransack more than cosmetic? Do what I harp on survivors to do: use better tactics... Squat ruined buildings with numbers, don't just abandon them after they're taken, that's one idea. Oh, you have reasons to move? Fair enough... but don't whine about the ease with which survivors take an EMPTY building. An EMPTY building... I might support making fixing Ruin and Ransack two different actions, but not this. --WanYao 06:45, 12 October 2007 (BST)
14. Kill - As AlexanderRM below and WanYao above --~~~~ [talk] 07:33, 12 October 2007 (BST)
15. Kill - Unbalanced, as many above. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 08:52, 12 October 2007 (BST)
16. Kill - Mentioned a few times already, but bears repeating. AP is spent killing a squating zombie (5-20 AP, depending on weapon of choice and not counting missed shots/swings), repair (1AP), and barricading (7-10 AP just to VS++). That's a day's worth of activity right there, and those are optimal conditions. Add 9 more AP to the equation, and NO ONE will want to bother even trying to fix buildings. The encumbrance cost of a toolbox, plus the extra step of ruin repair, makes it expensive enough.--Actingupagain 15:51, 12 October 2007 (BST)
17. Kill - Coupled with the 16% encumbrance of the toolbox, the 10 AP used would be too much. 4 AP would be a lot better in my opinion. --^T 16:11, 12 October 2007 (BST)
18. No, no, and NO. - Survivors are already nerfed enough. Glenstone 17:06, 12 October 2007 (BST)
19. Kill - As above, 10 AP too high when taken with the fact that the Toolbox is 16% encumbrance and the survivor also has to have ammo on hand to clear the zeds out before any repairs can be made. I can see the logic for requiring more than 1 AP, but 10 is too much. --Shazzelim 17:45, 12 October 2007 (BST)
20. Kill I don't like things that eat up AP. Less actions is less fun. Which is why I also agree that ruin doesn't make sense. I think the cost of ruining a building should be reduced rather than the cost of fixing it raised. It would be unfair to have huge encumbrance levels for the toolkit and 10AP fixing costs. --Jon Pyre 17:51, 12 October 2007 (BST)
21. Kill No way. --Seventythree^Talk 22:14, 12 October 2007 (BST)
22. Super Kill - Are you crazy or something? 10 AP just to fix a ruin? You're forgetting how many AP it takes to eject the undead residents. --Hhal 01:10, 13 October 2007 (BST)
23. Kill - When taken into context, it takes far more than 10 AP to "fix" a ruined building as it is... I mean, the amount of AP it would take for several survivors to take back a single NT building by wasting it on killing all the zombies inside first. --Private Mark 05:15, 13 October 2007 (BST)
24. Kill - Zeds are not underpowered. The reason fewer people play zeds is that in the zombie genre becoming a zombie means you lost. You died. Your character was a bit player. Probably the only black guy in the horror movie. Or maybe you were dumb enough to wear a red shirt in a horror film. Whatever the reason, adding power to zombies won't bring in new zombie players. --Nosimplehiway 01:17, 14 October 2007 (BST)
25. Kill - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:51, 14 October 2007 (BST)
26. Kill - 5 or 6 much more reasonable. Sockem 04:54, 15 October 2007 (BST)
27. Kill - No, hell no --Ryiis 17:51, 15 October 2007 (BST)
28. Kill – Unnecessary. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:03, 17 October 2007 (BST)
29. Kill - It already takes up far too much effort to repair a building. Think about it. The problem with this is you don't seem to be taking into account the events that normally surround a building being ruined. It's never just a single zombie that just breaks in, kills every survivor, ruins the building and expects to hold it. Normally, this takes lots of zombies, and its lots of buildings at the same time. Thats how zombies are effective. That's why there are hordes. There is no point making the AP cost higher when it takes quite a lot of co-ordination and effort (AP) by survivors just to combat these hordes. Survivors need a quick, effecient way of repairing damage thats already been inflicted. How many times have big zombies hordes actually been stopped? Not a lot. Don't make it too hard for survivors. --Scurley7 07:11, 17 October 2007 (BST)
30. Kill - Are you kidding?! Ruined buildings, IMO, are what caused Caiger Mall to fall for the second time, and destroyed the surrounding suburbs. No. Just No. --Shatterspike1 23:52, 18 October 2007 (BST)
31. Kill/Change- I'm with Target Zombie. --Vkkhamul 17:34, 20 October 2007 (BST)
32. Kill - Already stated in kill #s 3 and 4...I couldn't read anymore replies, but didn't need to.--Kolechovski 14:39, 23 October 2007 (BST)
33. Kill - this Idea just sucks--Rictor Stilwell 02:41, 24 October 2007 (BST)
34. Kill - This isn't really fair to survivors at all, once zombies do manage to ruin an area AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO GUARD IT it's very near impossible for survivors to take it back. Once a building is ruined, the survivors have to clear out ALL the zombie before repairs and barricades can be done. Now, with twenty or so zombies, it's easy to get rid of them, but with a major horde its impossible. --Sniperfive40 03:04, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spamish -If you really meant "take 10AP to fix", this would be a serious ruin NERF. Ruin currently takes well over than 10AP most of the time to clear out zombies, not to mention barricading so they don't just re-ruin 5 minutes later. And that's with a really low success rate- until you fix and barricade, any zombies you do manage to kill can just stand back up and walk back in. Not to mention the toolbox takes up a flippin' 16% or something, and isn't the most common items to find. Heck no. --AlexanderRM 02:45, 12 October 2007 (BST)
2. Spam- You forget about the fucking 20% encumbrance toolbox. How's that for cost? Moron.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:51, 12 October 2007 (BST)

   Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry! I had no idea you really needed five more shotguns in your rainbow-colored trenchcoat to shoot zombies outside with. Slicer 04:00, 12 October 2007 (BST)

   Try ten first aid kits. Or ten syringes. And stop stereotyping survivors, idiot. Just because I carry a few shotguns doesn't mean I'm a trenchcoater. It means I want to be able to clear buildings if I happen upon an infested area. Means I play smarter, not whinier. Unlike you.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:04, 12 October 2007 (BST)

3. Spam - As bad as headshot with twice the effect.While ruin isn't exactly that useful,this is overpowered.And Slicer,insulting people who vote 'Kill' and 'Spam' on your suggustion does not work.(Rainbow-colored trenchcoat?*think of cute little cartoon zombies*)P.S.Didn't see that Nali-attack. --Perne 10:06, 12 October 2007 (BST)
4. Splasm - No. It already sucks if a place is ruined, dont over power it. doc crook 23:17, 12 October 2007 (BST)
5. Spamination - this suggestion cares very little about game balance, or logic, or knowledge of current game mechanics. Please realise the Big Picture before subjecting us to such drivel. --Funt Solo 11:12, 13 October 2007 (BST)
6. SPLICED HAM!!! As all kill & spam votes above. Oh, and one more thing... "Game fixes to player made problems are always dumb." If you guys think you don't have the numbers to compete with survivors, improve your PR and start recruiting. Stop suggesting this horseshit. --Slightly Lions 12:41, 13 October 2007 (BST)
7. Spam Nerf Is Not The Answer. ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 04:54, 17 October 2007 (BST)