Category talk:Danger Reports: Difference between revisions
The Rooster (talk | contribs) (talk outdated) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Missing danger level== | |||
Recently, I've frequently come across situations where I had trouble picking the right situation: Zeds have broken in, but there is still a reasonable survivor presence, so the conflict might go both ways. Currently, all danger levels either have barricades up, or building ransacked/ruined. There's no middle ground (except rebuilding, which gives the wrong message in this case). Granted, the middle ground often only lasts for a few hours, but this might make it all the more important to incorporate it in the danger levels, to signal both parties help is needed. | |||
I propose a new danger level: Contested: 'The building is open but intact, zombies and survivors are battling inside for possesion of the building.' --{{User:Grungni/sig}} 09:13, 23 October 2009 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 08:13, 23 October 2009
Missing danger level
Recently, I've frequently come across situations where I had trouble picking the right situation: Zeds have broken in, but there is still a reasonable survivor presence, so the conflict might go both ways. Currently, all danger levels either have barricades up, or building ransacked/ruined. There's no middle ground (except rebuilding, which gives the wrong message in this case). Granted, the middle ground often only lasts for a few hours, but this might make it all the more important to incorporate it in the danger levels, to signal both parties help is needed.
I propose a new danger level: Contested: 'The building is open but intact, zombies and survivors are battling inside for possesion of the building.' --Itsacon (Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton) 09:13, 23 October 2009 (BST)
