Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair

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

20080729 Partial Repair

Jon Pyre 16:16, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Suggestion type
Ruins

Suggestion scope
Heavily ruined buildings

Suggestion description
My character in Monroeville passed a building that required 47AP to fix! I've been in favor of not allowing partial repairs of buildings since that would allow survivors to just whittle away over a few days and patch up buildings too easily. But 47AP is a bit much to require someone to spend in a single click.

I suggest allowing people to repair ruined buildings in installments of 30AP a click. This is still high enough to deter tiny repairs over time, but allows twenty AP to get to and from the ruin.

TO BE CLEAR, I'm not saying that they FIX the building for 30AP if it costs more than that. If the building requires 41AP to fix and they click it'd still require a further 11AP to unruin. The way the button could display it [Repair Building 30/41]. There would be no change to repairing buildings that cost 30AP or lower, the partial repair would only affect buildings that cost 31AP or higher.

I think being able to spend 30AP for a click is not some kind of unwarranted buff, considering how high the repair cost can get. And there's no logical reason why you couldn't repair a building in installments.

The downside to this is if a survivor wants to fix a building at once even if it costs more than 30AP they'll have to click a second time, spending another IP hit. I'd say the increased flexibility is worth a single measly IP hit though.

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 I'm all in favor of a challenging game, but there's a line between hard and unplayable. You only get 50AP a day! 47AP to fix is not really doable and it seems silly to require people fall into the negatives. Can the repair cost go higher than 50AP I wonder? --Jon Pyre 16:19, 29 July 2008 (BST)
2. Keep - If you goal is to repair an old broken building, why spend 10 minutes clicking and loading a new page? gabdewulf 14:44, 31 July 2008 (BST)
3. Keep - It makes sense to be able to partly complete a task. You should not be forced into negatives to repair things. How about people quit the "Zombies have it hard so anything which helps survivors is horrible" idea and vote on the merits of the suggestion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:33, 31 July 2008 (BST)
4. Keep , BUT you should be able to choose how many AP would you spend (0-50) to repair the building and you should be able to see how many AP does it cost to fix it. Good suggestion. --Piskus99 23:50, 31 July 2008 (BST)
5. Keep Because too much negative AP in a single click isn't very enjoyable. And UD is a game. "Don't mess with people AP" after all. And this solution didn't reduce the amount of AP needed to restore a ruined building. -- Bug MacLock 10:52, 1 August 2008 (BST).
6. Keep - It makes no sense the way it is now. I also do not want to get into metagaming. The thing I love about this game is that I don't have to spend hours a day playing—in fact it restricts me from doing so—and I just hate it when people make it so that I have to spend more time. And PLEASE don't tell me that I don't have to play this game. Idly Hummingbird 09:30, 3 August 2008 (BST)
7. Keep - as those above. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:12, 6 August 2008 (BST)

Kill Votes

s00per strong kill - This is not a DUPE. Hagnat's mechanic seems to allow you to repair 1 AP at a time, but this is an all-or-nothing repair. Different enough not to be a DUPE. However, it's still a retarded suggestion that is basically survivors whinging because now they can't repair and 'cade strafe certain suburbs all alone. ZMOG! Survivors might have to coordinate and metagame HARD -- just like zombie players -- to clear those suburbs which they were too lazy to actually reclaim earlier... Cry me a river. Or, get your fucking metagame on. In conclusion, yet another retarded suggestion from our not-so-favourite suggestion spam-meister who never even has the decency or the courtesy to put these wretched ideas into Development... Because he thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else? Meh. --WanYao 16:30, 29 July 2008 (BST)

I suicide revive... And go into negative AP. And die. And then my friends revive me. Rinse and repeat. And togehter we revive dozens of people and help get a devastated burb on its feet in a mwtter of days. Suicide Repair -- what an insane concept!?!?!!?!!!!!eleven1 It's not so hard. Or unfair. Spend less time and energy spamming the Suggestions page, and more time getting your metagame on. --WanYao 16:44, 29 July 2008 (BST)

First, there's Monroeville to consider. Suicide repair there doesn't work. Second, it seems a bit weird to require suicide. Suicide reviving is a strategy but not a requirement since it only costs 10AP to stick a needle in someone. Imagine if revival cost rose the longer you've been dead and it took 60AP to revive someone! Third, the main advantage of a turn based game is that metagaming is optional. You should be able to be a casual player and still be able to have an effect. I don't want to spend a million years on forums and IRC and whatever. Give me my fifty clicks and let me get on with my life. You're still going to be outdone by the metagaming zombie group that coordinates smashing into your safehouse, and more the power to them for collaborating. --Jon Pyre 17:01, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Firstly, I don't care about Monroeville. Secondly, metagaming is sadly not optional to be an effective zombie. If it were balanced and if you could be a feral zombie as successfully as you can be a feral survivor then it'd be a different story. But it ain't. And, really, all it takes it a few minutes a day to keep up with forums to metagame efficiently. Especially for survivors. In any event, if you really CARED about the state of decay, you'd go repair those buildings alone as a "public service", get revived, do it again, so it's easier for the other poor blokes who come along. Seriously, most highly decayed suburbs are as bad as they are because most survivors can't be arsed to even GO THERE. That's not the game's fault, it's the players' fault. --WanYao 17:13, 29 July 2008 (BST)

1. killyou may only have 50ap, but if you get organised and reclaim an area its no problem. And yes, higher than 50ap is possible. If you die, that's unfortunate. its all for the greater good. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:29, 29 July 2008 (BST)
2. Kill - Firstly this is not a dupe. Precedent in such situations has taught us this. I'd recommend you take anyone removing this suggestion to Arbitration (and thus reverting their removal until the case is finished) otherwise I will dupe everything to death using the vaguest guidelines - for instance duping sledgehammers with rocket launchers, because they both cause damage - and let the trusted users that seem to be leading this idiotic charge sort it out on A/VB. All that being said, I dislike this idea and want it killed and cycled in the proper way so that I can us it to correctly dupe something else. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:43, 29 July 2008 (BST)
3. Kill- It's just another excuse for survivors not to work together and metagame; weakening them further? --Vynergy 21:39, 29 July 2008 (BST)
4. Kill - Large AP costs to repair building encourages repairing near survivor populations first. I do not like the idea of being able to run clear across a suburb to incrementally repair severely damaged buildings. If you need to run back and fourth 10 blocks to repair a building without dying you should probably let the building stay ruined or just accept that you might die repairing it.--Pestilent Nomad 08:16, 31 July 2008 (BST)
5. Kill - Not the way to solve this. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:02, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Dupe - Of hagnats Ruin Repairing change in undecided. no significant differences, same concept. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:22, 29 July 2008 (BST)
   • Re I've read that suggestion. That suggestion allowed people to repair buildings by spending 1AP to fix 1 point of ruin. This suggestion is different because it simply caps the amount you repair with each click at 30AP. In that suggestion a building with 20 Ruin would require 20 clicks to fix, and allow you to stop at any point. Here you'd still have to spend 20AP in one click. That's a significant difference, whether or not you personally want to change the current system. --Jon Pyre 16:26, 29 July 2008 (BST)

   As i said, no significant difference. Slapping new numbers on an old suggestion doesnt make it a new suggestion. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:29, 29 July 2008 (BST)

   Discussion moved to talk...

2. Dupe- 2 months undone in 2 days means I'd spam it if it were original, people too lazy to coordinate don't deserve a free ride. --Karek^maps?! 16:23, 29 July 2008 (BST)
3. Dupe - Unforunately. DanceDanceRevolution 17:05, 29 July 2008 (BST)
4. Undupe I'm not SURE if this is where UNdupe goes, but correct me if I'm wrong, admins. This is NOT, I repeat, NOT a dupe of that suggestion. This suggestion allows you to repair for 30 AP if it's above 31 AP to repair, while Hagnat's suggestion gives you 1 AP/1 Repair. EDIT: And 20 AP/20 Repair. --High Gen. Grue Talk 18:07, 29 July 2008 (BST)
5. Dupe: There is no such vote as "Undupe", HighGenGrue. If you think it's not a dupe, then just vote for it in another section, either Keep or Kill, or even Spam. As for the acutal suggestion, I don't really see the need to change it until later on. I'm not going to call harmans overpowered, because they aren't. The game balance is alright for now, though, and I don't want any tinkering with it. So it would have been a Kill, except for the fact that this new suggestion is likely a duplicate of the previous suggestion. Differnet mechanics, but same basic idea=Dupe.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 18:17, 29 July 2008 (BST)
6. It's a dupe. And what's life without a little risk? You risk your AP to repair buildings, rather than just searching for another building to take cover in. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:02, 29 July 2008 (BST)
7. Dupe - I like this suggestion, but a dupe it is.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  20:22, 29 July 2008 (BST)
8. Spam/Incomplete - After all that drama, I have come to the conclusion that this an incomplete suggestion. Why? Because I know that I am absolutely correct in my arguments that if this is like syringe manufacture, then it's not a dupe. However, if it's not like syringe manufacture, then it is a dupe -- and Grim and karek are correct. Honestly, it reads as though I'm on the right track... but... we don't really know, it's not spelled out. We do not know if you have to spend 30 AP minimum; we do not know if I can spend 30 AP to repair say 20 point Ruins; we do not know whether this could put you at negative AP, etc. etc.. It's all very vague and unclear. Therefore, Spam/Incomplete. --WanYao 20:40, 29 July 2008 (BST)