Suggestion talk:20080120 make ruins not visible from other blocks

Discussion Moved From Talk:Suggestions

This is content moved directly from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer an active discussion

---

---

Ruins not Visible at Distance

Timestamp:	Swiers 09:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	interface / balance change
Scope:	ruins
Description:	As the name says; ruins would not be visible at a distance (IE, on the minimap). This is because they currently serve as advertised entry points, and thus help survivors more than they help zombies. And yes, this does mean you could unexpectedly end up out in the streets after attempting to free-run into a building that turns out to be a ruin. That means you'd better save at least 2 AP when free-running into a building who's status you are unsure of; 1 to re-enter in case its a ruin, and 1 to return to the building you were free-running out of. The one exception I could see to this is using binoculars probably SHOULD show you which buildings are ruins. This goes well with the fact that scouts get them as starting gear, and also helps to further encourage survivor metagaming, as discovering and communicating the locations of ruins would become more important.

Discussion (Ruins not Visible at Distance)

I kind of see the logic, but if i've entered a building and hauled myself up to the roof, my better view would show me if other buildigs i was going to free run into would be ruined. Would zeds be equally affected.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, zombies would be equally affected. All this really amounts to is re-setting the CSS sheet / minimap code to what it was before the ruin update (except for binocular views) and preserving all the other ruin effects.  Swiers 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I realy like this. Maybe you would need engineering in conjunction with the binoculars to tell wheter a building has been ruined?--Seventythree^Talk 09:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would engineering be a new skill, after construction. Seems a good combination. you have to get skill AND binoculars, so people wouldnt all just buy the skill with their saved up xp--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arg! Excuse my daftness! Of course, I meant construction, not engineering! But yeah, maybe include engineering as a new skill needed to repair ruined buildings and spot ruined buildings with binoculars. Maybe if you just have construction and a toolkit it takes 5 AP to fix the ruin, with engineering it takes 1.--Seventythree^Talk 10:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe ruins could still be noticed from inside neighboring buildings (perhaps only after aquiring Construction or some new skill), but not from street level no matter what skills you have? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that ruin the point of not being able to see what you are running into? I'm pointing this out because I think what Swiers wanted to achieve was unexpected falling out into the streets. In my opinion ruin should only be visible while in the same block, maybe only while inside the ruined building. - Whitehouse ^T 11:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't the point to remove the "advertized entry points"-part? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually now I re-read it that was the primary point. - Whitehouse ^T 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That is a good compromise in terms of game mechanics, but its somewhat odd in terms of "realism". If you can't even see how many zombies are in the streets from inside, why would it be easier to spot ruins from inside than from the street? Also, the "advertised entry point" is quite useful to somebody who is already inside, as they may be looking for a safe exit point where they know they can re-enter after doing something (like a revive) outside.  Swiers 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I like knowing which buildings are ruined. It's a visible mark of the wave of zombie-generated destruction. It's good flavor. Besides, if half the side of a building was missing I'd think I'd be able to notice from a block away. Also, ruin is useful for letting my zombie know where not to bother attacking, and useful for my survivor to know (once she gets that *^%$ toolbox) where to repair, and where not to bother with. Anyway, if ruin is really so bad for zombies, they can stop ruining... just like survivors can stop EHB++ing entire neighborhoods.

"This goes well with the fact that scouts get them as starting gear, and also helps to further encourage survivor metagaming, as discovering and communicating the locations of ruins would become more important." <- I do not like forced metagaming. Doing stuff outside of game is fun, but having to in order to play is teh suxz0rz. If anything, I would be making suggestions that *reduce* the reliance of the player base on metagaming, leaving it as an "also fun" thing to do, rather than necessary just to play the game. --Ms.Panes 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current "visible at a distance" mechanic is good flavor, but its terrible game balance. And yeah, zombies really should stop ruining... but they won't, unless ruin is removed from the game (which would likely help zombies). EHB's have some real use, and are only bad when OVER used; ruins have almost no use to zombies. It would take a HUGE metagaming effort to stop all zombies from using a skill that is supposedly designed to benefit them, given the fact that zombies can not communicate in game. And if only a small portion of zombies still use ruin, most ransacked buildings will end up ruined in short order. So, should the pressure be on zombies to metagame further, or can we maybe shift a bit of that pressure to survivors? Also, you say "if half the side of a building was missing I'd think I'd be able to notice from a block away", but if half the side of a building is missing, it should cost a LOT more than 1 AP to fix.  Swiers 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombies have to metagame to be effective, and even then, if the survivors metagame even a teesy bit you get pitneybank or santlerville or caigers 1 and 2. Also, Ruin and EHB are not analogous for several reasons. 1: Ruin takes 1ap to fix. EHB takes 76, assuming 25% to hit, which nearly never happens for zombies. Secondly: EHB is useful for survivors. Ruins are not for zombies. A ransack is better value for ap. Humans have so many in game communication advantages its insane. All a scout needs to do is say "Yo, X, Y ande Z are ruined on the radio, and everyone in the suburb with a radio to that frequency would know, and rush to fix it. There are so many in game methods for humans to communicate that they wouldnt need to metagame at all if they got off their arse and organised properly, even with this. Also, a zombies AP on a task should not aid a survivor as overtly as ruin presently does. Furthermore, ruin doesnt entail tearing half a building of. Its just wrecking the innards of a building, making them unsafe to free run into. IMO it should cost a lot more to fix than it does, but what the hey. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruin should really cost more AP to fix, and make free-running out of the building impossible. But as long as ruin is helpful to survivors, we could at least tone that down a little by making them harder to notice. :( - Grant 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"make free-running out of the building impossible" this would create islands in the middle of suburbs, and don't forget they can't be repaired until all zeds are dead, which would make this an uber-effective way to win seiges, as others coulden't get back inside to aid, severly tipping the balance in zeds favor. I agree it should be hard, but certainly not impossible or what would be the point in playing, as that would esently make surviving impossible.--Zach016 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I think that the zommbie side is in dire need of a boost, if they are boosted too far all it's going to do is create an inbalance, leading to a sort of "arms race" situation as it where. --Seventythree^Talk 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have that imbalance. Its a rather hideous one too. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

---

Discussion above the line is from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer active.

Discussion on Voting

Discussion on Voting goes under here

Discussion on the suggestion page

Discussion on the suggestion as submitted goes under here

Ruins

You said:

---

1. Change - make it so that this only applies from the street, not inside, otherwise there is no way to know if you are going to end up outside when you try to freerun -- boxy talk • i 07:03 20 January 2008 (BST)

---

I have two responses. The derisive and the sensible. Since i am in a generous mood for typing today, i shall present both:

1. Derisive: OH EM GEE! IT COSTS 1 EXTRA AP TO CROSS A RUIN! RUIN IS RUINING TEH GAME WIHT RUINZ!!!
2. Sensible: If you get knocked out of teh free running system by a stealth ruin, you have an entry point right there with which to re-enter the system. It makes travel a little more hazardous for humans? Good! My Brain rotted Pker finds life far, far too easy despite shooting people up in MALLS. Humans had an easy enough time finding places to hide and entry points after ransack was introduced, and to be fair, this would serve as a nice hazard to the human mobility advantage. It would also encourage people to be a little more coordinated and fix ruins faster. As for seeing ruins from inside a building: How on earth could people see a ruin from inside a neighbouringt building when they cant even see ruin from outside? Are all buildings now equipped with X-ray windows? It would be a nice hazard that would *gasp* present a risk to human survival. Much better than the only risk being the tiny risk of being killed by a zombie or pker. The only way for a sensible human to die at the moment is bad luck. A brain rot Pker thriving in a suburb with semi regular breakins illustrates this quite ably. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction was to agree with this suggestion, but that's mainly because of the current state of the stats page, zombies being well below 40%. And yeah, this may go some small way towards addressing the imbalance... but only a small way. It would make playing a survivor in the back waters much, much harder, but have almost no impact on them in the green zone... so we will still need an even more effective change to truly change the balance. And if balance is restored somehow, this would be a bad thing to have left over -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:09 20 January 2008 (BST)

No, it really wouldn't All this would do is make survivors unable to use ruins as entry points, that's it's only real significant effect beyond making you travel outside for long distances which is, in all actuality, a good thing, survivors should be doing that now anyway so that they know what is going on around them. Other than making survivors play smarter all this does is revert traveling to roughly what it was before ruin was implemented.--Karek^maps?! 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It kicks survivors outside without warning, is what it does. I've no problem with making them unnoticeable from the street, that would address one of your main criticisms with ruin wouldn't it Karek? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:26 20 January 2008 (BST)

Making it unnoticeable from the street doesn't help much actually, because then it makes ruins purpose singularly that of tracking zombies through zombies use of AP. I would, actually, prefer if ruin were completely removed from the game. As for kicking survivors out without warning, yeah you get kicked out once, but that's all, it's no better than ruin is now except that now you get advertised entry points and it's completely avoidable, both of which are things that should be removed. Ruin is weak, nothing that is done to ruin beyond disallowing all free running in a ruined building can change that. Ransack was weak too, ruin has weakened ransack more so that now ransack 3 is almost as pointless as it was back with ransack 1. Ruin is pretty much as insulting as Crates. Yes unnoticeable from the street removes part of the entry point thing, but with very little metagaming, or even communication of any level, survivors basically could negate that with little to no effort.--Karek^maps?! 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So now you're going to tell me that this suggestion is a survivor buff because it helps in the tracking of zombie AP use (whatever that means)? Being invisible from the street addressed the "advertised entry point" issue, doesn't it? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:15 20 January 2008 (BST)

Only in the smallest of ways, but no, it really doesn't. All I'd have to do is spraypaint directions to entry points like survivors used to do all the time before ruin, I can still see the ruin from inside a building, which is where pretty much 100% of all survivors spend all of their days, it only makes it slightly harder on the revived and on dealing with overbarricading, which is to say for them it will be like it used to be but now survivors can easily coordinate where their entrypoints are before giving out information or leaving a building, it's still an advertised entrypoint. So I guess that yes, I am telling you that making ruins visible from inside but not outside is a pretty big survivor buff.--Karek^maps?! 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You speak like ruins are static. They are constantly changing hands in disputed territory. Spraypainting directions to a ruin would be totally counterproductive (by the time it was read, it would probably be barricaded again). The only exceptions would be that the survivor population was in such control that they deliberately left a building ruined (using transmortal tactics), or that the suburb was so much in zombie control that they weren't likely to be retaken (and not really useful, as most of the burb would be ruined) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:37 20 January 2008 (BST)

Actually, ruins are pretty static. It's all a matter of whether the survivors in the area deem them useful or not, and then the only time you will really see ruins changing hands frequently is somewhere like Ridleybank or within the first two days of a large, and when I say large I mean 100+, zombie horde entering an area.--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where my survivor lives, it takes a lot less than 100 zombies coming through to ruin the majority of the buildings in the area. Perhaps the map needs to be made bigger, with the same amount of TRPs, or even cut down on malls by half. Spread the survivors thinner -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:52 21 January 2008 (BST)

It doesn't matter how big the map is, I'd say it's too big now. Zombies have to go where the survivors are, that's the way it is and the way it probably will always be. --Karek^maps?! 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've played this game for a long time, and always as a loner or part of a very small group (on both sides). And it's always been fun. But I do my best to stay well away from huge concentrations of survivors. They're arseholes when you're a zombie, and simply annoying when you're a survivor. Try wandering off to the backwaters of the map, Karek. That's what a zombie apocalypse is supposed to be about. Huge areas that are empty, small bands of survivors trying to stay invisible to the few zombies that are roaming the streets... and if they do get discovered, a feeding groan means a natural swarming effect as the zombie that found them calls it's mates in for a feed. It's fun, it's unpredictable, it's in genre... we need to find a way to bring it to most of Malton, but with the huge population, and the way they swarm to the green zones... it's not going to happen. We need more distance between the malls and other TRP's, so that there are abandoned areas in between where small groups of zombies can roam the streets at will, looking for adventurous survivors who like a challenge, well away from their supply points, leaving the malls and the forts to be fought over by the trenchies and PKers -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:50 21 January 2008 (BST)

By making survivor free-run movement more difficult, this effectively WOULD increase the distance between malls. Yes, you could still move out-doors just as quickly, but most people prefer not to. If nothing else, it would decrease the "radius of free-run scouting" around most malls and so on, and contribute to larger "unknown" areas.  Swiers 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxy, I've spent plenty of time in those areas both as a survivor and zombie. You're seriously misrepresenting what it's like in those area, the imbalance is all the more pronounced where fewer numbers are because that's how/where survivors should be playing.--Karek^maps?! 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course this has no impact on the green zone; by definition, the green zone has no ruins. Even ONE unwanted ruin probably makes it a yellow zone. Actually, I think its the ease with which survivors reclaim ruined backwaters that both iritates me most as a zombie player and keeps zombie numbers low. It removes any feeling of accomplishment from zombie play, and it means zombies don't ever "gain ground", which discourages them from moving on after ruining an area, and hence discourages natural (non metagame) concentration of zombie numbers. So if this primarily affects balance in "backwater areas", I say that is a good thing.  Swiers 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, to address Uncle Bill's comment on the suggestion page, that 4% you added onto the encumbrance is a big difference in the truth, toolboxes do not take up 1/5th of the total inventory space, if you are smart about when you get them they might not even effect your inventory at all, 16% encumbrance is ~ 1/7th of your total inventory, that's a big fucking difference. Also keep in mind that Toolboxes have more uses beyond simply fixing ruins, although ruins are currently the most efficient, in the case of an active zombie attack, though, toolboxes can be extremely useful.--Karek^maps?! 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Spam

Nonauthor or additional Res go under here