Suggestion talk:20071028 Another Ruin Suggestion

----Better Explanation----

- When zombie's ruin a building, debris made through this process hinders survivours and zombie's a-like from entering further until it is cleared.

- Survivours with a tool box can clear this debris for 2 AP, zombies can clear the debris for 3AP and survivours without a toolbox can clear a path for 4AP. Once the debris is cleared by a zombie or survivour, it is gone from that building until is repaired and then ruined once again.

-The number of zombie's inside the building cannot be over 3 when the building is ruined in order for the debris to block entrance into the building.

-Zombies do not have to clear the debris to leave, although they do have to clear the debris to re-enter

-messages given and better explanations for why these certain events happen (i.e. a zombie not having to clear it's way out, but having to clear it's way back in) are in the main suggestion. This is only temporariy while a revision is made, for better opinion o then on the disscusion pages where questions were never answered.--Zach016 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---"In a Ransack/Ruined building, the Zombies ARE the barricades"---

Let me explain why, although right, shoulden't be the only way, and why I forced it to three or bust.

-less fun, as zombies can't expand outward's to create more damage, and can't ruin mutiple building's themselves (big problem with it) as they can only stay and maintain one. That and the ruin would go nowhere's as the zed's can only go 23 ap outward's and then have to come back, without doing anything, were supposed to be surviving something here, not sitting around laughing because half the zed's are stuck half of malton away.

-still open between useage, survivour barricade's never automaticly fall down

-as it's been stated many times before, 1. survivours are in the majority 2. More good things to survivours then zombie player's

-encourages massive amount's of zed accounts just so the player can move on

the current system is broken, but not in the way most proclaimed (statement three of mine). What in the hell is a zombie player supposed to do if, in order for 100% most effective use, they can't move at all? This is the biggest AP killer this game has in use, as it makes players use 0 AP 24/7. Survivour's complain about a high cost to get back a ruin with 80 zombie's inside, that's 80 zombies using ap only to fight the unluckly sap who goes inside, thats 80 zombies who survivours on the streets should be running from. Who in the hell's losing more AP here, those using 150 ap to take back a building, or the zombie only using ap to attack survivours inside, but can't move away for maximum coverage? Answer that question (beyond the stupid, obvious answer) and i'll accept that piece of arguement.--Zach016 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---"it has benefits for both sides"---

Now let me explain this.

benefits for humans:

-zombies inside cannot reach a number over three in order for it to work -If the zombies leave, they have to remove it to get back inside, which means their is possibly zero zombie players inside a ruined building with this in effect. This mean's that alhough it costs more AP to get inside, it would cost less AP to fully take back the building if they were inside

benefits for zombies:

-more AP for survivour's to take back a ruin with zero zombies inside, allowing expansion and a better survivour downside to ruin.

benefits for both side's:

-not zerg abusable compared to now, why? 1. although a player could use a zerg account to get rid of the barricade, they don't even have to do that now 2. As stated before, the number of zombies inside cannot reach a number over three in order for it to work. This means that with it, survivours will still have a lower number of zombies to take on, and a zombie player can't fill a building with zerg account's (which they can already do) stacked on top of this.

Let's not forget how much of a fucking moron Steakfish's comment makes him. After all it's not like zombies have to deal with killing survivors sitting in buildings to ransack it in the first place, just the barricades.--Karek^maps?! 01:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got to tell you, honestly, your chances of getting this argumentative, over-complicated, over-written, badly structured, ill-conceived pile of mush through to Peer Reviewed is miniscule - it's beyond miniscule: it's sitting right next to nothing, on nothing's lap, eating the hole out of a donut. If you measured the difference between nothing and your chances, it would be shorter than the time between the light turning green in New York and the cabbie behind you honking their horn. Your chances are Buckley's or none. And Buckley's chances, just in case you don't know, were fuck all. (Free clue: the solution is not to write more.) --Funt Solo 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)