Suggestion:20071215 Falling Into Disrepair (Final)

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

20071215 Falling Into Disrepair (Final)

Pardus 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Tactical Addition

Suggestion scope
Ruined Buildings

Suggestion description

Issue: At the moment ruined buildings can be repair for 1AP with a 100% chance of success, this appears to some as unbalanced, but previous suggestions have had rather unlikable side effects.

Idea: I suggest that for every day a building is ruined the chance to repair it decreases by 10% to a minimum of 50%.

Therefore if a building stays ruined for;
More than 24 Hours (1 day), the chance to repair will be 90%.
>2 Days 80%, >3 days 70%, >4 Days 60%. >5 Days 50%.

Results: If survivors do not pay attention to a building for a long time they will have a difficult time retaking it and zombies may be able to claim territory.

It will take a large zombie presence and/or survivor laziness to make it extremely difficult to retake.

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. Notes: It had been raised to 50% due to concern of the RNG having it's days. It has been kept at 10% and 5 days so it actually has a noticeable effect and allow more fluid play. Sorry there will never be a two weeks version coming from me. - Pardus 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - You've worked on this hard, and have made some real concessions. Because the chance to repair is a percentage, you never know exactly how many AP it will take to repair the building. It could be 1, 2, 3 or possibly more depending on the RNG (Random Numbers Generator). I think this would help towards the always ominous survivor - zombie AP imbalance. There have been a lot of suggestions lately that have tried to deal with this, but go too far. Yours though, is a step in the right direction in my opinion: baby steps. --Ryiis 23:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep - It's a great idea in principle. Oh and to anyone who still thinks that Ruin was a complete buff to zombies, the negative effects on survivors are that they need a toolbox (lowering the still ridiculously high carriage capacity of survivors) and they need to spend an extra AP if they step on a ruined square. In return they get easily visible entry points, which they have never had before and which make survivor play a lot easier and save a hell of a lot more than any single AP. And let's not forget that it costs six AP to create and just one for the survivors to undo. Frankly, if it's a buff it's to the survivors. --The Hierophant 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep This has been a labor of love. Keep! ----Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep - This is weak but it's also practical. Maybe now ruins and ransacks will mean something instead of zombie AP wastage, as is attacking buildings serves no ingame purpose, at all, ever.--Karek^maps?! 03:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - As The Hierophant. --Mister Nathan Marbles 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep- Thank you for addressing my concern! --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
8. I liked the original version. This is a pathetic cave-job. Let the harmans keep the 1 AP per ruin- zombies don't need token buffs. However, I'm not against the IDEA, hence the keep vote; I'd just hope for an actually meaningful effect.
   Or how about a version that simply let zombies tell how long a building had been in zombie hands (ruined), with NO effect on repairs? Such a "flavor only" effect might be more useful than the version given here; it would give the zombies some new information to work with, which is generally more useful than a really trivial rules buff.  Swiers 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep - I would have preferred two weeks with the chances dropping down to 10% but you got to think positive.....good wallaby, good wallaby. --the wallaby^♥ 12:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Change - Time moves slow in Urban Dead. I say two weeks.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep - It should be slower. Or faster. Either way, I vote spam because I'm a jackass. BoboTalkClown 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep - Good enough for me. --Howard Bentley 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - Better now. --Perne 06:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep - Ok. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 09:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep! Keep! Keep! --Thekooks 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep in one form or another, the survivor buff that is Ruin needs castration. --WanYao 05:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Keep - As JohnRubin. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep/Change - I think this is too weak, now, but Ruin definitely needs a buff. This suggestion would make it an average of 2 AP to repair a buiding in the worst case. I say it should at least get to the point where the average is 5 AP (20% change to repair), if not more so, since holding buildings represents a significant sacrifice on the part of zombie players. - Grant 01:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill It should be slower. Buildings may look easy to retake on paper, but as it is, it is quite hard to reclaim ruined buildings and this would just make it harder and less friendly to new players. --Heretic144 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   It's freaking easy, if all the XP farming trenchies just targetted zombies inside of buildings it would take 1 person to repair and bring the building to VSB. - Pardus 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Kill 50% means 2AP. Not really significant. --Jon Pyre 22:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   And you are not going to get anything more significant. - Pardus 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Kill This is a realy good idea, if only you'd transalte it into extra AP needed as opposed to a % chance! I hate having to vote kill on this again, because I do love the basic idea.....--Seventythree^Talk 22:31, 15 December 2007(UTC)

   I am not going to translate it into more survivor deaths. - Pardus 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Kill - As above --Blobdude^{Talk TM MC} 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - I find this unnecessary, no matter how many minor tweaks you make to the numbers. --Pdeq^Talk* 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill - I think a concrete AP increase would be better--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

   And i believe it will cause more survivor deaths. - Pardus 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Kill - I still don't like it. --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

   You voted for it first time around and that was the strongest version. - Pardus 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hmmm, well my opinion has changed, sry. --Anti Gorefest5^TMW!B! 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Kill - Still not an appealing idea. Hopefully this really is the last we'll hear of it. --Pgunn 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Kill No, no, no, no, NO!!! You Shall Not Make Ridleybank Impenetrable! ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 05:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Unfortunately you can't make everyone happy. I'm one of those - I'd personally rather see more decay over a longer period of time (down to 25%, </2weeks). --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
11. kill - meh. as Dux and Sweirs --~~~~ [talk] 09:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Change - A longer period, please. And while you're at it, how about some flavour text? –Ariedartin ^Talk 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oh come on, you can't be serious when you say this is the final version, eh? Keep trying your best mate. –Ariedartin ^Talk 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yup, deadly certain. And no I'm not extending the time period as a shorter time period allows zombies to use it as a tactic. Tho I also see a lot of potential for it to be used by survivor groups to help maintain visible entry points. - Pardus 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

13. Kill As Driaquer. Omega 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
14. This is a 3rd time I'm saying this...Change it to 2 weeks and we'll talk. But guess what? With every revised version, you take off 1 day. That's completely opposite of what I'm telling you to do. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Kill - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - it's difficult enough to retake a building, that's why it's 1AP to fix the ruin. Remember, not so long ago, there was no such thing as ruin. There's no need to buff the buff. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

   Really? I retake them quite regularly with no problems, I remember one day retaking 2 buildings with a zombie in each. - Pardus 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

   yawwwwnn - oh sorry, you were saying? Gracious - the third version of this, and it's been through the talk pages, and it's still overpowered? --Funt Solo ^QT 11:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)