Suggestion:20071031 No Ruining Barricaded Buildings

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

20071031 No Ruining Barricaded Buildings

Villard 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Balance Suggestion scope
Ransack/Ruin Skill Suggestion description
After Free Running into Ruined buildings became prevented, people began taking advantage of this in what I consider unfair ways. Revived zombies parachute into building, barricade them up, and then die (normally through infection). This essentially creates a building which survivors cannot enter in any way. This is not how ruin was intended to work.

I recommend that ruining, (Or ransacking them as well if this is easier to code), buildings with barricades be disabled.

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 - This maybe going against conventional wisdom... but I don't like the new ruined buildings, I never have. Having Pinata's is just salt on the wound. This could have been an oversight on Kevan's part, but who knows --Ryiis 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - Don't like Piñatas. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - It does seem rather out of genre for a zombie to deliberately go and get revived, then betray his fellow suvivors. --Hhal 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - I'm suprised they're still around.Studoku 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - Do you people realize that the logic of "Kevan hasn't implemented this for a reason" can be applied to every single suggestion ever? --AlexanderRM 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep justification --Funt Solo 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep This seems like an oversight in the ransack/ruin code. --Sterling Bershadsky 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Because it encourages a style of gameplay that I don't agree with. - Whitehouse 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep *Driaquer quickly leaps onto the sinking ship* AlexanderRM asked something I want to know as well. ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Weak Keep - This is what modern ruins look like. Any building in that photo that you could barricade, you could also free run into. Anything you could not free run into could not be barricaded. That said, I haven't seen this much in the game, so I don't think it matters much either way.

    Still, ruins currently don't allow barricading, and it doesn't make sense ("it's ridiculous!!!" in the language of the hyperbolic reactionaries on this wiki) that the building would be ruined but the improvised barricades in its doorways and windows would remain untouched. Precision ruining makes no sense. Ruin should be indiscriminate. I don't think barricading should be strengthened or ransack/ruin should be nerfed, so I would tweak this suggestion - rather than disabling ruin in barricaded buildings, when ruin is used it destroys all barricades along with the rest of the building.

    Regarding the "Spam" votes, from Voting Rules:

    "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."

    I suspect that the authors of the rules were not using the term "ridiculous" with the rhetorical hyperbole of many voters when they describe something they personally dislike, but truly ridiculous items, like antigravity floating PD's with laser turrets, or forcing all characters to wear clown suits. --Clay5x 03:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

    While amusing to read none of that has to do with this suggestion. For one who seems to claim to know much about voting criteria you're missing a few big things, if you want something major changed, like say how it goes about meeting the end goal, you should vote kill not keep because you do not actually agree with the suggestion, in the case of your change you don't agree with it at all. Also before making reactionary "all spam voters should vote keep comments" like you have multiple other times before try actually reading the spam votes, all of them are about this buffing barricades more, something which already has a 4:1 build to destroy ratio and is considered by many players to be one of the things that if made better could easily break the game. --Karek^maps?! 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Non Author Re but kinda worth it if he does read it. --Karek^maps?! 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

11. Keep - I can't believe the number of kill votes. How would a building be able to stay barricaded if it happens to be ruined and you can no longer barricade? Definite keep, because it is retarded to have zombies inside barricaded buildings. --Shatterspike1 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - Even though I suppose I don't agree with most of the people voting kill, it makes more logical sense. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
13. The survivors need something to counter ruining. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - Makes sense to me... --Captain Winters 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Is this a Halloween joke? If Kevan didn't want this feature to be available, he probably would have tweaked ruin before implementing it. Besides, this is one of the major benefits of ruin for zombies - if you don't want a building to be un-enterable, either sacrifice yourself to the "cause" or take the barricades down. Crowbars are not that hard to find. Also, please remove the junk from the top of this page. Sheana ^{T / TMZ} 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill-Sheana summed it up well. Junk removed.--Seventythree^Talk 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Kill - Sheana summed it up well. Junk not removed because I'm copy pasting the above vote.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill - sorry but i like REHBs and don't find them unfair --~~~~ [talk] 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill It's pretty simple to take it back down to VS. And its pretty hard for a griefer group to maintain pinatas because they can't barricade them back up. --Jon Pyre 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill I find REHBs cheap, but Im sure Kevan has his reasons. Sockem 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill As Sockem, personally even though they're annoying it is a tactic exploited ans used by zombies, and if kevan didn't want them to have this, then he'd stop it. I actually saw the first pinata and thought it was a bug, but i was told it was a reasonable tactic. Acoustic Pie 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - Awww. Poor survivors are having trouble getting into barricaded and ruined buildings. Let's all help the poor survivors get into the maybe 1 in 500 buildings that have been made into pinatas. Do all you survivors want free lollypops and shotguns too? --Steakfish 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill - There are piniatas. Live With It. BoboTalkClown 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Kill - Yeah, just make Humans even more overpowered. Ruined and barricaded buildings is a part of the game. If you don't like it, spend about 15 AP and find a crowbar.--Erutan 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Kill - They are not horribly difficult to take down to VSB; furthermore, I don't see them very often. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill - La la la...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Kill - Ruined buildings are fine the way they are. --Sonofagun18 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Kill - As above. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 08:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Kill – Stop whining and lift your game. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Kill - Inside every box there is a SUPRISE! --WanYao 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Kill - Even though I'm a survivor. Ruin is decent how it already is. --Pvt De 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Kill - Too griefy. Zombie raids on buildings with active caders are not at all rare. Survivors can cade and run, leaving zombies unable to ruin unless they spend even more AP to de-cade again...no, bad idea.--Jiangyingzi 07:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Kill - A few weeks ago, I found a ruined XHvy caded building. This Level 41 alt is bored and currently dedicated to fixing ruined buildings, so I considered it a fun challenge. Took two days, but he finally cracked it, fixed it, and brought it back up to XHvy. Satisfaction for a job well done ensued.--Actingupagain 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Kill - Keep it the way it is. --Howard Bentley 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Kill - Nerfs pinatas, which I consider to be a sneaky (but fair) tactic. --Uncle Bill 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Kill - It really hurts me to vote this way, because I think the tactic is tremendously unfair to survivors. That said,it makes sense that in a zombie apocalypse some buildings would be barricaded by people who then went on to die and reanimate. The basic problem is the no free running into ruins thing, not this tactic. A ruined building should be easier to get into and out of than a barricaded building; isn't that the whole idea of barricades? --Nosimplehiway 18:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Kill - It would seem a better idea if ruining a building also damaged the barricades instead, dropping them to VS++ immediately, or at least to HB. Hearing about these kinds of tactics make me wonder who's really going against the setting, my singing zombie, or those who metagame all they can for an advantage?--Grognor 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Kill - I like the ruin how it is --Kung fu cat 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Yay! Nerf ruin! Buff Barricades! Do crack so this sounds like a good suggestion! --Karek^maps?! 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Spam- As Karek. Also, it is highly unrealistic. In a zombie apocalypse, I imagine that barricaded buildings CAN be ruined... --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Spam - Pinatas are scarcely effective as it stands, so there's absolutely no need for this. --The Hierophant 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Spam - Karek, I don't know what the fuck you were playing at by removing all these kill/spam votes. I'll assume it was an accident. I reverted it for you.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Spam - NO DONT --Druuuuu 21:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
6. T3h N1Nj45 made me do it!! - The ninjas made me spam this!! that, and the fact that, as Karek, it nerfs ruining and buffs cades and i think you are on crack. --Poopman9 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)