Suggestion:20071107 Repairing Building Damage Varies Directly With Level of Damage

	Revised
	This suggestion has been withdrawn for revision, the new version is Suggestion:20071115 Repairing Building Damage v2.0.

20071107 Repairing Building Damage Varies Directly With Level of Damage

Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Balance change

Suggestion scope
Survivors repairing buildings.

Suggestion description
The AP cost of repairing buildings will vary directly with the amount of damage (ransack level) done to the building by zombies. For example, if a building was ransacked 3 times, it would cost 3 AP to repair the building. If a building was ruined, it would cost 5 AP to repair, and so on.

Don't think that this will terribly nerf survivors. Zombies spend 5 AP ruining a building, and I think survivors should spend the same amount to undo the damage.

A few weeks ago, there was a suggestion for the cost of Repairing to be 10 AP. Even I thought that was absurd! As you can see, this one is much fairer to the harmanz.

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 --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - I do think so. --Karloth Vois ^RR 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - Great idea. It'll get spammed to fuck by people crying about toolboxes, but a great idea nonetheless. --The Hierophant 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - Sorry but the toolbox justification for having the imbalance is weak at best, don't want to carry a toolbox? Then don't, pick one up before you repair then drop it after, either way 16% encumbrance isn't that big of a deal. --Karek^maps?! 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - I like this. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - Yes, please. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - I like it. Studoku 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep - Stop voting kill because you have to clear out the zombies or get a toolbox, you have to do that anyway's(clear) and you only have to find a toolbox once, it's a decent suggestion--Zach016 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry I missed your election as Lord God of Wikidom. All hail Zach16 and obey His commandments. User:Nalikill 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

   Heil Hitler Zach!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

   Non-author Re's struck. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

9. Keep - Stop your fucking whining. BoboTalkClown 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep - I don't think it's such a bad idea - I think 1xp should be gained for every repair though, it would then give some characters something to do other than shoot and heal.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - i don't think so --~~~~ [talk] 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - If the toolboxes weren't so damn bulky, maybe.--Actingupagain 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Kill - Not particularly implausible, nor genre-breaking. It comes down to just not being fun. --Pgunn 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Kill I'd rather that ruining a building just cost 1AP. I agree the cost is unnecessarily high. But rather than having two unnecessarily high costs I'd prefer no unnecessarily high costs. --Jon Pyre 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill No. Sockem 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill Nope. Toolkits balance it out fine as it is. --Seventythree^Talk 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill Add in the provision 'toolkits still repair everything for 1 AP' and you'd have a keep. If you remove this and add in that provision, it would be much more likely to pass- like I said. User:Nalikill 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Kill - It kinda makes sense, but personally i wouldn't like it. Remember - the main advantage to ruining a building is that survivors have to clear out the zombies before they can repair it. In my opinion, that's the AP balance in itself. --Kikashie ^ELT 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   Likewise, zombies have to clear out the harmanz before they can ruin it. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

   But thats the main zombie goal already - clear buildings full of survivors. Ruin is just a bonus at the end of it. _{(If you changed the cost to 2AP, as Uncle Bill said, i would vote keep.)} --Kikashie ^ELT 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

9. Kill - As above. The actual AP cost is much higher than the single AP you spend when you repair the building. There's also the opportunity cost of AP spent searching for a toolbox and items not carried because of the toolbox. --Steakfish 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Even if you could just drop it, spending the AP to find a toolbox is hell enough. And as far as I can see, the ruin skill is fine so far. --Private Mark 01:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Change - I'd vote for it if it took 2 AP (one to bring it from ruined to ransacked and one to fix it completely). Five still seems a little high. --Uncle Bill 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
12. kill If that were the cost to repair it without tools then yes, as is its a BIGBADISAYNO!--Honestmistake 10:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Kill - Reasons as per Herr Solo. --WanYao 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Change - Withdraw this suggestion and change it to 3 to repair a ruin because 1) you have no way to determine how ruined a building is 2) You will get more support, I'd vote keep if you even solve the first problem. Why didn't you take this to the development page? - Pardus 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Kill Isn't 5 the required to Ruin? Make it 2 or 3 total to repair a Ruin to full, and 1 for all Ransacks. ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Kill The toolbox encumbrance is enough to make ruin effective. --Pdeq 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Kill Like many above stated, not such a bad idea, except the Toolbox already does its thing requirement-wise.--Kolechovski 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
18. kill The ruination is powerful enough already The man 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - you're mistakenly equating the APs to do/undo a particular action. It's like when people say shotguns are overpowered compared with claws - without first remembering that the zombie doesn't "run out" of claws, and doesn't need to spend any time looking for a homicidal manicure. One word: toolbox. And arguing that a survivor can "just drop it again" is more spurious idiocy. It might be free to drop it, but it's not bloody well free to find one, is it? Tell you what: I'll vote Keep if zombies have to spend 10-20AP traveling to a special zombie shop to buy special zombie ransack-machines. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2. I'm with Funt on this one. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Spam -Even Funts suggestion doesn't work, because the zombies still won't need that inventory space for anything else. --AlexanderRM 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Spupe - Enough with anti-survivor ruin fixing suggestions. As Funt.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Spam - As Funt! Look at me! im n ur bas camo-ing mai vot!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Spam - Spiced ham. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Change - Survivors should be able to set zombies on fire.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Spam - As Funt. --Hhal 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)