Suggestion:20071029 Another Ruin Suggestion(v1.1)

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

20071029 Another Ruin Suggestion(v1.1)

Zach016 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Ruin change

Suggestion scope
Survivour/zombie

Suggestion description
Hopefully this will be an easier format to read then the last suggestion.

---The Main Suggestion---

- When zombies ruin a building, debris is made through this process which from then on hinders survivors and zombie's alike from entering the building until the debris is cleared.

- Survivors with a tool box can clear this debris for 2 AP, zombies can clear this debris for 3AP and survivors without a toolbox can clear the debris for 4AP. Once the debris is cleared by a zombie or survivor, it is gone from that building until it is repaired and then ruined once again.

-The number of zombie's inside the building cannot reach a number over 3 at the exact moment when the building is ruined, in order for the debris to block entrance into the building. (Explained in messages)

-Zombies do not have to clear the debris to leave, although they do have to clear the debris to re-enter that building

---Message's Given---

Once leaving, the zombie gets a message like this “you leave through a small hole you made, but falling debris closes it behind you”

If there are more then three zombies inside once it’s ruined “rubble fall’s in front of the entrances, but a fellow zombie accidentally pushes it back out of the way”

Once a survivor/zombie is outside an affected building, they receive a button to clear the rubble and the message “rubble blocks the entrances inside, and will have to be moved before you can enter”

And of course once a zombie ruins the building they receive the message “Rubble falls in all the entrance’s, blocking the way inside”.

---Explanation's---

Why a zombie does not have to clear the ruin to leave, but must do so to get back inside: During the ruining process each zombie happens to make a small hole some where in the building’s walls (look at the piece of text you receive sometimes when trying to free run into a ruin, it's something along the lines of "you are stopped by a collapsed wall" this already is in place in a certain form, but is of no use to anyone involved). Due to the amount of debris it looks covered on both sides (i.e. why survivors don’t see it) but the zombie remembers where it is (they made it, and are smarter then the average zombie). Once they leave through the hole, debris falls and fills it behind them making it unusable.

Why the number of zombies cannot reach a number over three inside the building in order for the debris to block the entrance: This is just so there cannot be 80 zombie alts inside a police department, on top of having this in place. This makes it so a lone zombie can hold a building longer without needing such a massive number, and give them more confidence in moving on to another suburb to do more damage.

Why the AP is set where it is: This is just because those with a tool box would have better tools to do the job, and zombies would be able to do it better then a person without, as they would not care as much to damaging there body in the process. Even gloves make a difference.

---Issue's---

"In a Ransack/Ruined building, the Zombies ARE the barricades"

Let me explain why, although right, this shouldn’t be the only way, and why I forced it to three or bust.

-less fun, as zombies can't expand outwards to create more damage, and can't ruin multiple building's themselves, (big problem with the current system) as they can only stay and maintain one. That and the ruin would go no where’s as the zombie player's can only go 23 AP outwards and then have to come back, and that's without doing anything. Were supposed to be surviving something here, not sitting around laughing because half the zombies are stuck half of Malton away.

-still open between use age, survivor barricades never automatically fall down

-as it's been stated many times before, 1. Survivors are in the majority 2. More good benefits to survivors then zombie player's

-encourages massive amount's of zed accounts just so the player can move on, if the player wants full coverage.

The current system is broken, but not in the way most proclaimed (statement three of mine). What is a zombie player supposed to do if, in order for 100% most effective use, they can't move at all? This is the biggest AP killer this game has in use, as it makes players use 0 AP 24/7. Survivor’s complain about a high cost to get back a ruin with 80 zombie's inside, that's 80 zombies using Ap only to fight the unluckily sap who goes inside, and that’s 80 zombies who survivors on the streets should be running from. Who is losing more AP here, those using 150 AP to take back a building, or the zombie only using AP to attack survivors inside, but can't move away for maximum coverage? Answer that question (beyond the stupid, obvious answer) and I’ll accept that piece of argument.

"never try to make it harder for zombies to hold buildings"

This actually makes it easier for lower amounts of zombies to hold a building, but in order for it to be fair; it must be kept at a low number. Larger amounts of zombies would not be affected by it in the lest. The 3 AP to get back inside, but also clearing the debris in the process is a trade-off for the player to decide to make.

over-complicated

Answered before by others, just look at the bottom of the page: Invalid Votes Server Load and Programming Complexity are NOT very good Kill reasons. You are voting on the merit of the suggestion and whether or not you think it belongs in the game. Server load/complexity issues are up to Kevan to decide.

---Author's Note---

I heavily apologize now, having revised this suggestion, I found the error's I made before. I made the suggestion unreadable by trying to fix it up a bit quickly before fully putting it up, without paying much attention. I should have re-read the suggestion before putting it up for vote.

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 -- author vote--Zach016 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep - I liek this suggestion. Not amazing but better than Meh. The preceding unsigned vote was made by BoboTalkClown at 20:05, 30 October 2007 --Ryiis 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Keep - I love the idea of debris, but not sure I like the specific mechanics of this implementation. --Clay5x 04:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. killish -You never mentioned what the actual point was. --AlexanderRM 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Kill - Not that its bad, but I can't see how this makes much of a difference. Sockem 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: it's just to add those extra AP that zombies want, but keep it a bit more balanced in the face of survivors. Don't look as this as just a 2 ap cap, times that by 25 buildings and that player has used up one day's worth of extra AP, although it is spread out enough to make it so that it doesn't effect the game or fun massively, or even in a small manner. Look at it as a more long term effect, that extra 50 ap is a possible 50 building's out of 75 just repaired. This should give the benefit the zombies are looking for, without causing any unwanted grief.--Zach016 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Kill Geez, as if making me fall when I try to free-run through wasn't bad enough... ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: See the trade off, this means few zombies in a ruined building with it, but without it, it could mean many. Im not throwing this on top of 50 zombies, im throwing it on 3.--Zach016 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Kill - The old system works better.Studoku 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Kill - As before, I just don't like it. --Sonofagun18 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Kill If a zombie prevents other zombies from entering a ruined building, that is counterproductive. --Jon Pyre 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Kill - I'm not sure what this suggestion is trying to accomplish, other than to make a simplistic system into a complex behemoth of unimaginable proportions. If you haven't already tried, may I suggest the Talk:Suggestions page where they can help you to develop your suggestion into a more coherent package --Ryiis 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: one, complexity is not a valid reason for a kill, and 2, thanks for the offer but i did and it got me no where's, actually it disillusioned me into thinking it was ready.

   Re - actually, complexity of concept (not complexity of programming) IS a valid reason for a kill. Enjoy --Ryiis 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: in what way is it complex? 3 zombies or nothing. so much ap to remove it, no ap to leave. Doesn't sound all that complex to me.--Zach016 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Kill - Zombies can't barricade. --Anotherpongo 16:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: it's an accidential barricade made through the process

9. Nope --Seventythree^Talk 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Kill - Still a bad idea. Grammar is also still atrocious. --Pgunn 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Kill- As Jon Pyre. --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Kill - Ruin is enough. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Kill - Bad flavour. Zombies in genre movies and films don't organize to build barricades. That's a survivor's role. --Nosimplehiway 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - You missed the point of my Spam vote last time. You don't Ransack/Ruin the building and then never leave it again. If you have plenty of AP left, Ransack/Ruin it and move on. Other Zombies will be able to maintain your Ruin. It's only when you're down to your last few AP for the day that you should try to find a Ruin to sleep in. If there's no Ruins around, by all means, attack the barricades a couple more times, and stand in the street until your AP comes back. If you passed a Ruin a few blocks back, though, skip those last couple barricade attacks and camp out in the Ruin. --Steakfish 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Spam - Kung-fu CB Mama on Wheels. The suggestion is also stoopit.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Spam - Looks like you've changed nothing except now you're including some comments on votes from the last one. It's a nerf to zombie movement and zombies holding territory and it just adds to the growing pile of shit that imbalances AP for zombies cost to do vs survivor cost to undo. Also Steakfish still doesn't know what he's talking about. --Karek^maps?! 01:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: Undoing it is the zombies choice to make, but im sure most of the time there are more then 3 zombies ruining a building anyway's, or a large group taking over a large amount of territory. Like i said before and again, it's to help smaller groups of zombies which is one of the reason's why i included a cap on the amount allowed, and i didn't change anything because i had written it so badly very few could understand it.--Zach016 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Spam - For one reason and one reason only: too goddamn long to read. Way too goddamn long. That is a good enough reason, i.e. it is not a readable suggestion. WanYao 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Spam - I've got to tell you, honestly, your chances of getting this argumentative, over-complicated, over-written, badly structured, ill-conceived pile of mush through to Peer Reviewed is miniscule - it's beyond miniscule: it's sitting right next to nothing, on nothing's lap, eating the hole out of a donut. If you measured the difference between nothing and your chances, it would be shorter than the time between the light turning green in New York and the cabbie behind you honking their horn. Your chances are Buckley's or none. And Buckley's chances, just in case you don't know, were fuck all. (Free clue: the solution is not to write more.) --Funt Solo 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re: "over written" not much i can do there to get the point across, just read the main suggestion if it's too long for you, thats why i broke it up like that. "over-complicated" im guessing you never read issues then, thats an invalid thing to base a vote on (bottom of page if you want to read it yourself)--Zach016 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re - I wasn't referring to programming complexity. By the way, "im" isn't a word. --Funt Solo 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re i forgot the ', but that's not what this is about. What other complexity is their to it? 3 zombies or nothing. so much ap to remove it, no ap to leave. Doesn't sound all that complex to me. Unsigned comment struck. --Funt Solo 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re i forgot the ', but that's not what this is about. What other complexity is their to it? 3 zombies or nothing. so much ap to remove it, no ap to leave. Doesn't sound all that complex to me,oh and thanks for reminding me to sign my comments (im not being sarcastic, i actually forgot)--Zach016 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Spam - nothing really changed from previous time, right? --~~~~ [talk] 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re except wording and a better explanation, it was the whole point of the revise, as no one could make heads or tails of the last Unsigned comment struck. --Funt Solo 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Re except wording and a better explanation, it was the whole point of the revise, as no one could make heads or tails of the last--Zach016 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Spleen - above!--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Spam TL;DR  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)