Suggestion:20100623 Barricade Interference Fix

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

20100623 Barricade Interference Fix

Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:08, 23 June 2010 (BST)

Suggestion type
Balance

Suggestion scope
Zombies; Survivors; Barricades

Suggestion description
Zombie interference as it currently sits is IMMENSELY powerful. A great mechanic, but as it currently sits it is far too powerful. Regardless of how many zombies are in a building, zombie-blocking is roughly 50% (i.e. 50% of the time you would have gotten a barricade level added, the zombie blocks it). I propose that this percentage is variable based on the number of zombies:survivors in a building.

The ratio I am thinking of is a 1:10 ratio to lower the Z-block percentage by 10%. Obviously Z-blocking does not begin to happen until there are at least two zombies in a building, just as things currently work.

Under this fix, if there are two zombies in a building, there need to be 20 survivors to lower the Z-block percentage down to 40%. This is stackable, but never lowering Z-block to less than 20%, regardless of the number of survivors. Some example figures:

• 4 zombies: 30 survivors = 50% Z-block____This line is unchanged from the way it works currently.
• 4 zombies: 50 survivors = 40% Z-block____4:40 = 10% reduction
• 6 zombies: 120 survivors = 30% Z-block___6:60 = 10% reduction, so 6:120 = 20% reduction

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. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:09, 23 June 2010 (BST)
2. Keep I don't necessarily agree with your spadework, but agree that the system as a whole can be tweaked as you suggest. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:12, 23 June 2010 (BST)
3. Keep - The siege is possibly the best opportunity to get survivors engaged in meta-gaming, but the mechanic is broken and interference is simply too strong. Whilst I'm not sure of the numbers, the ratio idea is a good idea and should be taken further. --BOSCH 12:01, 23 June 2010 (BST)
4. Keep - Siege gameplay is way too much tilted towards zombies. --Thadeous Oakley 13:27, 23 June 2010 (BST)
5. Keep - As above. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 17:21, 23 June 2010 (BST)
6. Keep - The second example is wrong--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:54, 23 June 2010 (BST)
   • Re - Not wrong, just purposefully higher than the 1:10 ratio to demonstrate that the % reduction doesn't scale in-between ratios. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:40, 24 June 2010 (BST)
7. Although I wouldn't say a 1:10 ratio. Maybe a 1:3 or 1:5 ratio. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:36, 23 June 2010 (BST)
8. Keep - The numbers may or may not need tweaking (I like them as they are), but the idea is definitely sound and definitely necessary if we ever want to see real sieges return to the game. And as you said, it only comes into play when there are relatively large numbers of survivors anyway, so this shouldn't affect ferals attacking random buildings, only those trying to establish a beachhead in a building that was very well held by survivors. —Aichon— 13:29, 24 June 2010 (BST)
9. Keep - I definately like the ratio idea. Legion8 09:04, 27 June 2010 (BST)
10. Keep - Would make sieges into sieges, not a one-sided massacre. John Ibans 00:38, 28 June 2010 (BST)
11. Keep - Good idea, as above! --DiSm 14:50, 30 June 2010 (BST)

    Keep - As above. I believe cade blocking in itself was a necessary change for balance in the game, however, the rate of cade blocking has made it pretty much impossible to have those epic sieges that once brought so many survivors and zombies together for a chaotic and exciting event. From my experience, and looking at the game as a whole, I believe the absence of the possibility for major sieges is disheartening for survivors and zombies alike. For survivors, it's the futility and apathy they experience when they literally don't stand a chance against a horde of zombies. For zombies, it's the lack of a real challenge, opposition, and sometimes disappointment by how fast buildings fall. Over time, I think it's made the game stagnant. And I've thought for a while that the cade blocking rates have a part in it. So, I think an adjustment would provide stimulation for both sides. --Fiffy ^{404 ♥ OBR ♥ RRF} 12:38, 8 July 2010 (BST) Vote after deadline struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:21, 9 July 2010 (BST)

    Keep - I agree. Because of the current barricade interference system you can't have real sieges. Crares 11:00, 9 July 2010 (EST) Vote after deadline struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:21, 9 July 2010 (BST)

Kill Votes

1. Kill I applaud your sense of balance, but as a survivor I've never had a problem with it.-- » JS talk contribs » 12:29, 23 June 2010 (BST)
2. Kill The problem here is there's an assumption of something that isn't true, I.e. cadeblocking actually kinda sucks right now. It doesn't need yet another nerf when it was balanced when it was originall implemented. --Karek^maps?! 20:49, 23 June 2010 (BST)
3. Kill - Interference needs to be toned down, but absolutely not without compensation. And certainly not based on ratios, as that will only hurt ferals (who trickle slowly in), while strike teams keep going. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:33, 23 June 2010 (BST)
   • Re - That is part of the reason I chose such a high ratio. Because realistically a small number of ferals will not (often) break into a building with even 10x that number of survivors inside. So this should affect strike teams and hordes more than ferals in most instances. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:40, 24 June 2010 (BST)
4. KILL - With this suggestion your non-existent Survivor balls just retreated even further into your body creating a vagina. Eat a dick. Learn to SURVIVE, not try to fuck zombies over even more just so you can hold some building you have delusions of ownership over.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 22:03 23 June 2010(UTC)

   Cool it. Insulting people on the internet has never made anyone sound smart.-- » JS talk contribs » 00:21, 28 June 2010 (BST) Non-author RE. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:24, 28 June 2010 (BST)

5. Kill If there's a zombie blocking your cading, deal with it (kill/revive). I could see the interference being tested against your melee attack, but even one zombie is going to cause you trouble, so I don't see the justification for this suggestion. (if there's a lot of survivors in the building, then there's more likely to be someone playing, so this would probably be balanced in-game anyway). No-genius 12:34, 26 June 2010 (BST)
   • Re One zombie doesn't even bring barricade interference into play (requires at least 2 standing zombies). Also, any survivor who has been in a siege situation will tell you that you barricade before you kill because that prevents MORE zombies from getting in. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 01:33, 27 June 2010 (BST)
6. Kill - interference either needs to be entirely removed, or left as is. Any sense of scaling will hurt the people it shouldn't without touching those it should. 00:45, 2 July 2010 (BST)

   Kill Karek! Er, I mean… what?>_> ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:50, 8 July 2010 (BST) Vote after deadline struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:17, 9 July 2010 (BST)

   I fought so hard to get that implemented and it's been so difficult to even measure mechanically that I really support CAN'T changing it before more research is done. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:00, 8 July 2010 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

---