Talk:Piñata

This term sucks and should've never been coined. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 01:21, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Sonny, go troll someone who gives two fucks about your opinion. 'arm. 01:44, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Obviously you give a fuck and a half since you took the time out to tell me. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:07, 24 September 2007 (BST)

If it massages your ego to think that I care what your opinion is, when I all but tell you to fuck off... then yes, I give a fuck and a half. 'arm. 02:17, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Told ya so. :p --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:25, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, that did make me laugh :D. Sorry, I think I'm just in a bad mood tonight. 'arm. 02:28, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Ah. We're all in bad moods. That's why we're trolls. What's your reason? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:34, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I don't think I have a real reason today. But anyway, I agree - 'pinata' is a bit of a shitty term.. but it fits, and I kinda like crap jokes. I guess that counts as trolling-by-stealth when they end up being forced upon others. 'arm. 02:51, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Forced terms are never good. They usually fail. BARHAH was not forced. Zerg was not forced. Trenchcoat was not forced. See how those last? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:52, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Well, I just meant forced in the same way that some people find crappy jokes funny. Like "That's so bad it's great". It's here now - it remains to be seen how well it's picked up or not. And that's certainly not anything I can force. The terms you reference all follow naturally, similar to how 'Pinata' actually fits the scenario. Btw, what would you suggest as an alternative to 'EHB/HB Ruin'? Or would you not suggest an alternative? 'arm. 03:04, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I'd call it pinata but not tell anyone it's a term you coined. Let it gain use over time. If you force it into a game term people will reject it. So if you just called it pinata and let people naturally find it while just saying it every once in a while you'l lsee it catch on. Think of it like a /b/ meme. Mudkipz owns but Seaking does not. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 03:32, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Go MissingNo! ‮Aw crap, it screwed up my game again =\ - If Jedaz = 03:42, 24 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

'Etymology' duly removed. It's a good point you made actually, thank you :). 'arm. 04:00, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Much better. Now it'll slowly become a term. I already heard someone say it in #rrf-ud. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 04:12, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I like MissingNo!, that should have been the name.--Karek^maps?! 23:54, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Pinata with survivors inside

It should be possible to make a pinata with survivors inside even in a single block building. These would be the steps:

1. Find or create a unruined, unbarricaded building with no survivors inside who aren't in on the plan.
2. A group of at least two zombies and at least one survivor enters the building.
3. The survivor(s) barricades the building, and revives most of the zombies, leaving at least one zed standing.
4. The revivifying bodies don't stand up yet.
5. The standing survivor(s) leave.
6. A zombie ruins the building, and (optionally) leaves.
7. The revivifying bodies stand up.

Then you'd have survivors inside a ruined, barricaded building. It'd perhaps be useful if you were hiding in a dangerous suburb - you'd have barricades, but you wouldn't stand out on the mini-map. --Toejam^{Stats Graph Updated} 09:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Yeah, you're right. But it's even possible to do with 1 survivor and 1 zombie-without-rot. Survivor gets infected, both get into the building and continue on the plan, in the process of reviving and building cades survivor dies from infection and then as zombie ruins the building. Also, his revived comrade might have a syringe/FAKs and make another revive, thus having only survivors in there. By the way, hiding in ruined buildings is great as the generator that is set up there boosts search rates back to the "normal" (unlit, unransacked) and it isn't shown on the minimap (i already did this once). --~~~~ [talk] 11:26, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I'm starting to realise more and more that the Ruin update is a survivor buff. The 5 extra AP it costs to RUIN a building in 'zombie-territory' is pure indulgence. It's not actually worth ruining buildings, but almost zero-zombie players realised that. Interesting that you've confirmed that a gennie in a ruined building boosts search rates back up to normal. 'arm. 18:20, 24 September 2007 (BST)

This my statement is based on a relatively low amount of actual data, so don't quote it elsewhere ;) And ruining buildings is worth when a large horde that consists mostly of ferals raids the suburb. It helps to see what buildings are already "dealed with" and which "food cans" should be yet "opened". Also majority of survivor players aren't really much smarter than zombie players you mentioned, so it evens out --~~~~ [talk] 18:33, 24 September 2007 (BST)

:P I coulda told you that. It has pretty much always been that way with ransack but survivors were in denial, just like how many still don't know that you can search ruin/ransacked buildings. It's sad.--Karek^maps?! 23:53, 24 September 2007 (BST)

It doesn't really make sense that a powered building can be seen from the street, but a powered ruin can't. It sounds like a bug (not a feature). It's just another example of why RUIN is a survivor buff. I mean, survivors don't get curtains to put on powered buildings, why should zombies provide them at a cost of 5 AP? I'm going to have a look through the suggestion history, 'cos this doesn't sound right to me. Unless someone can justify why the status quo should be the case. 'arm. 00:38, 25 September 2007 (BST)

Seems weird but kinda right, wouldn't be fair to have gennies flag them when they can't have barricades, it would be so easy that it would be no fun. Groans and what not.--Karek^maps?! 01:31, 25 September 2007 (BST)

That's a good point, but I still think I'm going to suggest it. Overall the Ruin change is very positive to survivors, and being able to hide powered generators in ruined buildings tips it too far, IMO. 'arm. 01:58, 25 September 2007 (BST)

What good does a powered generator do in a building that survivors can't get into? Does a Necrotech building still operate while ruined, but powered? Please explain the tactical advantages of such a building for survivors, beyond their ability to hide (which doesn't have anything to do with gennies) within a zombie controlled neighborhood.Wenin 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a discussion about Pinatas, but rather ruin in general, so the building is easily accessible through the front door. Yes, they do, you can rot revive in ruined buildings, and it brings the search rates near normal. Tactical advantage, normal search rates, rot revives, etc. in a ruined building, which stops zombies from seeing the lights, and is far safer than a barricaded building, there are plenty of tactical advantages to it if used smart.--Karek^maps?! 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pssht. I bet nobody expected The Maltonian Inquisition to do it! but we did! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fisu (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 November 2007 (GMT).

Why do you think nobody expected? --~~~~ [talk] 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Because no one expects the Maltonian Inquisition! -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:20 15 January 2008 (BST)

Does Pinata only refer to EHB

What about VHB ruins? Or HB? A HB ruin probably isn't worth it... costs less to knock down the cades to VS, and repair than just barricading back up from scratch -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:20 15 January 2008 (BST)

Well... Hm... i'm for altering article to say "a building which is barricaded heavily" so that all cases would be included. in reality, even those players that make caded ruins make them just about rehb+0 or rehb+1, not rehb+3 that would be much "better". thus i don't think article should be picky on the word "extremely". however some phrase about "the stronger it is - the longer it'll last" should be there --~~~~ [talk] 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone Pinata'ed a mall yet?

And if not, why not?! --Cman yall 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much effort for too little reward, I presume. OffTheWall 10:20, 16 April 2008 (BST)

It's been attempted at Calvert. Ignorant local zombies ruined the effort by de-cading ruined corners. Sigh. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Treweeke Mall is Pinataed at the moment. 3 corners at EHB, and one at heavy, all ruined :D -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:41 6 April 2010 (BST)

Check again, Boxy. 3 unruined at EHB, one open ruined. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:50, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I stand corrected, it's ruined again.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:51, 6 April 2010 (BST)

May not have lasted long, but it happened. I wonder who it was -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:18 8 April 2010 (BST)

Not a clue. You'll probably have the mall back by the end of the day, though.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:25, 8 April 2010 (BST)

Its happened to Lumber before. Just no evidence I can find. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 21 August 2010 (BST)

If you could give a rough date, one could google-/site-search the various witness systems for reports. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:12, 21 August 2010 (BST)

Pinata Master

I believe I have done more Pinatas than any other member. I have made it my lifes work to Pinata and do it at every available chance. ----KRaZyXmAn 19:24, 1 May 2010 (BST)