Suggestion talk:20130105 Increased Initial Repair Cost

Discussion from Developing Suggestions

Timestamp: Spiderzed█ 20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Type: Mechanics

Scope: Survivors

Description: There have been a few suggestions about tweaking the ruin mechanics to make them harsher. Most of them go off tangents and add baroque frills like chances to fail repairing, or a requirement to repair them 1AP at a time. Personally, I am person of simple solutions, so my suggestion is very straightforward: The base cost for repairing ruins is increased to 2AP (instead of 1AP). Every server refresh, +2AP are added (instead of +1AP). What this does is to essentially double the ruin repair costs. This will shift the break-even point for ruins from the zombie POV from 6 days to 3 days. Any ruin reclaimed before that 3/6 day mark will mean an AP net gain for survivors (not counting zombie-cleaning). Anything reclaimed past the 3/6 day mark will mean a net gain for zombies. This would make meat-shielding ruins a much more profitable short- to mid-term endeavour, as there is a net gain much quicker. On the plus side for survivors, there will be suicide repairs to brag about unheard of but under the influence of drugs.

Discussion (Double Decay)

I've actually been pondering this topic recently. I think you're on the right track with increasing the base cost, but I'm not sold on doubling the rate of decay.

Essentially, it's bad for the game if it's easy for one side to hold an area for an extended period of time, particularly if they can do so with minimal effort. They should have to work at it. Barricade strafing is an extremely effective (and low-manpower) tactic in that vein, but it doesn't work so well in areas that have been ruined for awhile, since progress is much slower. Increasing the base cost of repairing ruins will help reduce barricade strafing's effectiveness, thus making it more important to ensure that ruins don't happen in the first place. I'd suggest increasing it even further than you suggested, however, perhaps to 6AP, that way the ruin pays for itself immediately.

In contrast, permanently doubling the cost of the rate of decay will make places that are already difficult for survivors to reclaim even more difficult to reclaim, which is the exact opposite of what we want to be doing (and yes, these places do exist...an SoC member had a 98AP repair this week, for instance). That said, it might be doable if it starts off at an increased rate and decreases to just 1AP/day after a certain point (say, 50AP), that way it doesn't contribute to bloated repair costs. It would also have the benefit of providing increased incentives for survivors to try and rush to make a repair, that way the cost doesn't get any higher. With 1AP/day, that incentive isn't a major factor, but doubling it could encourage survivors to try and evict zombies who are still in the building, rather than waiting for them to wander off, and that will mean a less effective use of AP overall by survivors.

So, basically, I'd tweak it by increasing the base cost even further while limiting the doubled rate to only apply for the first X AP or so, that way it doesn't get too out of hand. —Aichon— 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur, move the break even point. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it really have made much difference whether that one ruin eats 98 or 196AP? It is still a suicide repair, requiring the same measures for securing it, and the point is still mostly to reset repair costs, not to necessarily hold that ruin on the first attempt (although if that works, it is a nice bonus).
What I aim for is simplicity, so different decay rates are out of question. +5AP initial repair costs sounds better. -- Spiderzed█ 13:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fair, and I agree that simplicity is a good idea. As for making it a 196AP repair, I think it would have mattered, since you would have effectively doubled the manpower necessary to retake the suburb in the same time, or else you'd have doubled the time necessary. Plus, the game simply isn't fun when you can't play it for several days. That defeats the purpose of keeping people engaged. —Aichon— 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your playing style. For big game ruin hunters (like 404), finding and actually getting your grubby hands on a three digit ruin is its own reward and well worth the time-out. But I can see how it can be off-putting to some. -- Spiderzed█ 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Having repaired the ruin with the highest reported decay value (577 AP), and with many other three-digit repairs under my (tool)belt, I can personally vouch that finding and repairing such targets is remarkably satisfying and worth the time asleep. I'm quite possibly in a minority, though. It was more than eleven days without playing for the big one... I idled out long before I could see again. Obviously I have a vested interest in this, but I do feel doubled ruin costs might cheapen Big Game Ruin Hunting for certain players, however, although I am very much in favour of a buff to decay for other reasons. --BOSCH 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I was intentionally very specific in what I said. I said the waiting was no fun. I never said it wasn't worth it, nor would I ever suggest such a thing, since I believe otherwise as well. ;) —Aichon— 04:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So, consensus seems to be that decay rates should be left alone, but initial repair costs should be raised by 5?
In that case, a linked changed should be to add +5AP to the AP range of each Decay description, i.e.:

• The building has been completely ransacked, and has fallen into ruin. - 6AP instead of 1AP
• The building has been completely ransacked, and has fallen into ruin. A thin layer of dust covers the debris. - 7-8AP instead of 2-3AP

And so on and on, with +5AP to each the lower and upper AP range of each decay description. -- Spiderzed█ 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am very much in favour of increasing the initial repair cost by 5AP so that the cost of ruining breaks even for zombies in many cases (as most buildings are reclaimed quickly, from experience), and to (frankly) be more realistic for survivors. 1AP (half-an-hour) to repair an entire building requires even more suspension of disbelief than usually required in this game. Three hours seems more appropriate, and fits in with other actions costing multiple AP (such as 6AP to rise from headshot on a zombie with Ankle Grab). I also like the idea of the decay description being updated to reflect the change. --BOSCH 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Bosch and everyone else on this one. +5 to the initial repair costs.--RadicalWhig 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No discussion in a week. Unless it takes off in the meantime, I will enter the suggestion with just +5AP over the holidays. -- Spiderzed█ 21:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Suicide repair impact

I'm not exactly sure how increasing the baseline repair cost AP by five will cause many more suicide repairs. Is this a holdover from a previous version where costs increased by more AP/day (2 I think)? Just interested. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The flat +5AP will increase the number of suicide repairs, but not as extremely as the original proposal of doubled decay. -- Spiderzed█ 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Makes sense. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I Didn't notice this until it was closed but wanted to put my three cents in.

1. I wonder if it is wise at all to increase the AP cost of anything in a game with dropping player numbers.
2. I see this leading to a further division of zombies and survivors as survivors simply stop moving in to suburbs like Whittenside and New Arkham, staying in more well fortified areas. I arrive at this through the idea that barricade strafing is one of the only good ways to get a foothold in a red suburb as a vested siege gets you killed almost every time. This proposal does not make barricade strafing less effective, it makes it wholly impractical. With no foothold, these suburbs stand a good chance of effectively dying. True, zombies could use this as a cue to expand into more heavily populated areas but many will remain behind to guard their homeland and raise repair costs to obscene levels. Less conflict leads to boredom and even lower player numbers.
3. From a fairness standpoint, I don't see it. Base repair is a survivor advantage but barricade success rate, zombie interference, decay, and de-barricading balance it out. If more stages are added to the easier to achieve barricade levels,the chance to barricade past EHB were increased, or there were a cap to how ruined a building can become, I could see there would still be a fair balance. All of these though sound like more trouble than they are worth.

I am clearly in the minority here, and the vote has already been cast, but this is how I see it. -- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 20 January 2013}

Fair points, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as you suggest. With ruin becoming more practical for zombies, I believe they will spread out further from traditional areas, leading to more disparate conflicts, and less territorial zombies.

Secondly I think survivors will die more as a result. Which is great. Survivors need to understand death is part of the game, and not really a big deal. Revive points were at their most efficient when the dead were in town.

Also barricading is hugely ap efficient in terms of survivors, at least to the sensible vsb level. It's a valid concern that making things harder may put people off, but it seems a better solution than lowering the cost to ruin.

Overall it's something I don't think we can predict the outcome of. Damn Kevan for never setting up a test server for our crazy shit. --Rosslessness 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

True, we cannot predict the outcome. What I know now is that those survivors who want sit around in barricaded buildings and roleplay, flock to green suburbs, while those who want to play strategically, search out the red. I do not see this proposal doing anything but keeping survivors out of red suburbs. In a Green suburb, it does not matter at all if the initial repair is 1 or 6 AP; it will be paid at no great deficit to the survivor. In the red suburbs, it will make all the difference, making it impossible for survivors to gain a foothold without overwhelming numbers. Fortress and a few others will likely still move in, but nomadic survivors and small groups won't. It is not a matter for them of being afraid to die, most who so venture are well accustomed to it; it is a matter of not being able to do anything except die. That does not make the game more enjoyable.

As to zombies spreading out, it may happen or it may not. Those who are here to play might, those who are here to win, will not. Currently those who want to play have a way to play against those who just want to win. This proposal robs them of some of that in my mind.

In short, if I thought that this would help zombies take green suburbs, I might be more for it. I don't. I think it will help them hold red ones without contest. Again, I am in the minority, but I don't see that this is good for anyone.

If you want more zombies, let first level zombies speak zamgrh and let higher level zombies use more letters. I mean currently, you practically have to metagame to get anywhere as a zombie group, whereas survivors can communicate wholly in game. Don't make it easy; the language barrier is part of the fun of being a zombie, but don't make a person buy two skills before they can even try. Either that or increase their combat skills. That will bring them into survivor-held areas in a hurry. Change the base repair and I think you will get fewer as they will get bored holding an unchallenged suburb.

-- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 20 January 2013}

The funny thing is, that I think zombies are better at metagaming, because of the problems of ingame communication. So you get fewer, more organised zombie groups, and thousands of poorly organised, competing survivor groups. It's no coincidence that the survivor groups whose members have zombie experience are the best organised. --Rosslessness 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't argue that. It is irrelevant though. To get more of anything you have to accept that you do not just get the top percent. It was however a side point to the issue at hand.

To want to play, there must be a chance of success. Without it, it is a beating not a game. If small groups or individuals have little or no chance of success, they will not play in red suburbs, or at least they will do so infrequently. If they can't play in red suburbs, they can't get the strategic play they came to that suburb to get. The game loses players.

There are few large and organized survivor groups. Fewer still who are mobile. If they are the only ones who will make a serious move on a suburb, it will remain almost entirely untouched. If this happens, it dies. It only stays dead as long as it is held but if it is held it stays dead easily. This encourages zombies to sit in a dead suburb. The game loses players.

-- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 20 January 2013}

The thing is, I don't believe they will. It's boring. It takes a hell of a lot of discipline to hold most buildings. Even moggridge has less than 5 zombies inside it now. I'd be interested to think what you'd think of this if it was replaced barricade blocking? --Rosslessness 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And you think that if the base was 6AP, that zombies would not hold the buildings? I don't think that end of things would change much. To humor the hypothetical, if it replaced barricade blocking, I would still be against it, but for a different reason. While it would be more balanced, by making it easier for survivors to hold a single building and easier for zombies to control the rest of a suburb, you are encouraging siege battles. There would be a way to gain a foothold then as we see in a successful Blackmore siege where the rest of the suburb gets repaired while the conflict centers on a single building. This encourages big battles, which does create action, but for my money, makes things more one dimensional. It would expect it to be more fair but less interesting. -- Albert Schwan  _{Monday, 21 January 2013}

It sounds like your primary concern hinges on whether or not this will nerf barricade strafing to the point of impracticality. If you're barricade strafing up to VSB and a building has been ruined for 5 days, this adds 33% to the AP cost. After 10 days, the additional cost drops to 25%. After 30 days, the added cost drops to about 12%. More or less, because it's a fixed cost, its proportional effect decreases as time goes on, meaning that it will have almost no impact on small groups or even just individuals retaking suburbs that have been ruined for awhile. Areas that are more hotly-contested are not as much of a concern, since people always flock to where the action is, but a change like this will help to keep zombies moving more quickly and thus help bring the action to more parts of the city (which is something we could definitely use right now, though the current situation was not my basis for my voting Keep on this suggestion). —Aichon— 00:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your figures are based on the initial move into a suburb. The way that I use barricade strafing and the way it is used by most people I know to establish a foothold is footing the original repair cost and then re-repairing the buildings as they fall to the zombies. In working into a suburb, you only foot the original price once, but you repair each building several times, building them back up faster than a zombie can tear them down. This is what I mean by barricade strafing and this is the strategy that is nerfed by this proposal. Not taking into account the AP to find and move to the location, or the AP wasted when a zombie is in residence and a new location must be found, this proposal changes the cost of each building from 11AP to 16AP. This is roughly a 45% increase. It evens a playing field that should not be even; the game should be fair not each mechanic. If a survivor cannot build faster than a zombie can tear down, this strategy is worthless. Even if you go with a more traditional approach, if a survivor can repair 2 buildings and a zombie can destroy 2, what good was the decoy? If you remove survivor advantages without providing others or removing zombie advantages, you tilt the game. Now, as noted, it is possible that the game needs to be tilted but the focus of this tilt and the effect I have argued it will have on red suburbs explains why I don't think it should be tilted this particular way. Tilt the combat, not the buildings. If you must tilt the buildings, install an AP cap to repairs so that suburbs do not die entirely. The latter still nerfs the strafing strategy but is at least less harmful to the game. I think the best course is not to monkey with this dynamic. I can only speak for myself, but as someone who spends a lot of time in red suburbs, with this change, strafing would no longer make sense. I will not operate under a strategy that does not make sense. This means that I will not spend as much time in red suburbs where only a couple zombies can more than negate any changes I could try to make. Staying out of red suburbs will make the game substantially less enjoyable, driving the strategy to cosplay ratio entirely the wrong direction.-- Albert Schwan  _{Monday, 21 January 2013}

My numbers were indeed for that, but I addressed the situation after the initial move-in after that. Moreover, you've asserted that it makes no sense if you can repair two and a zombie can tear down two; the only problem is, that isn't what's going on at all. VSB barricades take an average of 40AP to destroy by a zombie with full skills. So yes, while the tactic you're talking about is getting nerfed, it's going from being able to reclaim 3-4 buildings a day at 11AP each to 2-3 buildings a day at 15AP each by a single survivor, while a single zombie will on average still only be able to undo one of those (and if they fail to succeed on a given day, the survivor could simply re-barricade to get ahead even further). This is not the dire situation you make it out to be, and that's being said by someone who also loves working in red suburbs (both as a survivor and a zombie). —Aichon— 04:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it is not that dire. Progress could still be made by well organized survivor groups who number at least 1/2 the resident zombie population. When talking about a Whittenside, a New Arkham, or a Ridleybank, that is a list of one that I can think of and even that would require them to vastly change their playing style in a way that is not likely to happen. Will it kill the game? No. But I still think it would be movement in the wrong direction, and I still think that it would hurt the game by kicking it in one of the primary places it did not need to be kicked, having noticeable effect almost exclusively in red suburbs. -- Albert Schwan  _{Monday, 21 January 2013}

wow

can't believe I missed this. What a terrible, terrible idea. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevan appears to read criticism on ideas he's thinking about implementing. Assuming he looks at this, you might as well offer something constructive if you think the idea sucks. —Aichon— 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear reasoning as well. Its always fun to see how much of an Idiot I am. --Rosslessness 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just stupid and isn't the solution to "making the game less boring" or "more challenging" for anyone. And don't care about Kevan. he does what he wants and won't implement anything anyway. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)