Suggestion:20080303 Wasteland Change

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20080303 Wasteland Change

Zach016 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Land Change

Suggestion scope
Survivors and Zombies

Suggestion description

• Wastelands would be changed into the remains of a burned down building (discription) insead of just being nothing.
• Whenever a survivor or zombie resides in a wasteland they will not show up on the users view unless they themselves are in the same wasteland (hidden among the ruins)
• Any user in a wasteland cannot see behond that wasteland (view obscured)

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. Author - Author votes keep of course (disscussion from talk on discusion page)--Zach016 03:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep - completely unnecessary. But that's okay. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Keep - After much consideration, I flipped a coin an you won! That and I think my earlier concerns aren't as bad as I originally thought. --Uncle Bill 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep - Could'ent hurt--Jamie Cantwell3 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep - Sure, why not. --Zombie in Pajamas 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep - Good suggestion here. In response to John Rubin's first concern, I think the author intends for these ruins to be real ruins, as in the building is totally collasped and you would need a construction crew to fix it. --Hhal 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Keep/Change - I don't know why, but I really like this, I just added change because I think we can clear this up a bit and make it more specific.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak Keep- Why not? I can't see any potential abuse since hiding in a wasteland is still much less safe than an EHB doomfortress.-Studoku 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Keep Why not?, we've got woodland in monroeville. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Keep - I like the changes in strategy it would require --Pgunn 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Keep - Sure. --Heretic144 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Cool - Anything that gives more purpose to places other than TRPs - Pardus 02:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Keep - I;d be happy if they worked like woods do in Monroeville. Would add variety and suspense.  Swiers 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Keep - As above. --Toejam 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Completely unnecessary.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  03:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Just wondering - 1. We have ruins all around north Malton. They can be fixed with a toolbox and 1 AP. Wouldn't it a bit inconsistant that some ruins would be fixable and some - not? 2. Players are invisible to others unless those others are in the same block? Wouldn't it have something to do with ninja zombies? -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 06:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

   Re: These are fully burned down buildings, not a simple ruin, and as for ninga zombies I discussed this on the disscussion page a bit, there are benefits for both sides of the table depending how you look at it. Here it is: Before any objections to ninga zombies, I mean the walls would be high enough to obsure the view of the zombie/survivor, (which is the reason there vision is obsured as well). Ambushes could be taken into account although I don't believe myself they would have a very large effect, considering anyone can enter and see them at any time. Possible nerf to infection although thats debatable as they're still on the street and harder to find by FAk toteing survivors. Possibly destroies part of the negative effects of HB suburbs as the survivors would still have a place always open, but then again it raises the chances of a free lunch... No one seemed to object there--Zach016 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Kill- Agree it is pointless.--Airborne88 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill - As JohnRubin said.--Dr Doom86 10:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Now we need ninja weapons... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 11:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Kill I have a katana and I agree with JohnRubin - Headshot Hal 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Kill - Kind of pointless. Apart from anything else I always figured watelands where either going to be building sites, reuined buildings or derelict land anyway. And I don't like the hiding element.--Seventythree^Talk 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Kill - Now try to imagine a 40-zombie horde hiding 1W from Tompson Mall, or better - 2 unnoticed 40-zombie hordes (1W and 1S)... -- 
   •  Nevin McAvoy 
   •  (talk) 
   17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Kill- So anyway I do not see what the point is. -- BKM 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Kill - The first bulleted idea is interesting, but the others are not so much. I don't think that giving the ability for characters to be somewhat "invisible" is such a good idea. --Z. slay3rT 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Kill As JohnRubin --Trav 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Kill - it's implemented as "woodlands" in monroeville already --~~~~ [talk] 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    Re: This is for Malton, Monroeville is so far temporary--Zach016 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

13. Kill - I don't really see the point, other than frustrating groups that use wastelands as revive points. --Diano 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Kill - As Viktor Suvorov.--Carnexhat 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    Re: You can't periodly check them? they're always open, deary me if the zombies are not always in perfect sight in a ruined Malton, coulden't the same be done with a ransacked (not ruined) building? This doesn't differ much other then the fact you might have to move outside those four walls.--Zach016 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

15. Kill - meh--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 01:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Kill - It still seems too powered toward the zombies (as in ninja zombies). I also agree with 73's idea of what a wasteland is. Sorry.--Kolechovski 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
17. weak kill - i might change this if i read something compelling in the future --Scotw 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Kill - Sadly, I have to agree that this is too inconsistant. Hmmm, I can fix the taining building over yonder that 500 zombies tore to peices, but I can't fix this building up at all, and now, I'm so far in the middle of the ruins I can't see anything, oh darn. Padfu-Zomfu 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Kill - Changing the description will be okay. But a wasteland is NOT always a land of building remainings. Changing the property of the land type would not be reasonable. --RayHanley 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Kill - It's a proud tradition of wastelands that you're trying to destroy. No, not really, but let's not mess up the most useless scrap of land in Malton, huh? --Vandurn 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - ninja horde wasteland not my cup of tea. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   Re: Would picking certain wastelands about and changing them to be more fitting work better instead of every wasteland? It would still have the effect only more limited. Oh and standing behind a wall doesn't make you a ninga, funny thing that is, as if this is ninga then add the throwing stars because every survivor and zombie is a ninga with normal buildings and ruins, this just adds one thats enterable by both sides with even more of a drawback (I.E. you can't see the adjacent blocks, and its, ah always enterable)--Zach016 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't even like the flavour. You say wasteland is somehow full of things to hide behind that a street, or a park hasn't got - and yet my view of a wasteland is of a flat, empty area, where it'd be really easy to spot someone. What you're describing is junkyards, and we already have those. So, Dupe of ingame. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to discussion page. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)